Aggregated exchange price

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the price is 'computed from multiple exchange feeds', which is useful but limited. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value and the structure is optimal for quick parsing by an AI agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (read-only, current price), the description sufficiently covers the return value concept (aggregated price). The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for detailed return documentation. Minor gap: no mention of latency or data freshness expectations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%; both parameters ('symbols' and 'vs') have clear descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns the 'current aggregated price' for 'one or more symbols' derived from 'multiple exchange feeds'. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_coin' (likely individual coin details) or 'coin_markets' (possibly historical data).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for real-time price retrieval but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'get_rate_by_symbol' or 'resolve_symbol'. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.