getReferencePrice

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the returned price is a reference and not the final trade price, and results include multiple payment methods, timestamp, and quota info. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is well structured with Returns, Important, and Use Cases sections. It is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every section earns its place without filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately lists return categories and practical use cases. It covers what an agent needs to decide when to call it and what to expect back. Minor gaps like exact response structure and payment method semantics prevent a perfect score, but overall it is complete enough for a simple read-only query tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that 'symbol' means a trading pair and implies that 'paymentMethod' relates to comparing multiple payment methods. However, it does not specify the expected symbol format, accepted payment method values, or whether paymentMethod is optional in behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query the reference exchange rate for a specified trading pair.' It also differentiates this tool from the quote endpoint by explicitly stating that reference prices are for reference only and actual prices come from the quote endpoint. This makes the purpose and scope unmistakable.

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 gives explicit use cases: display approximate rates, compare payment methods, and estimate amounts before requesting a quote. It also warns that reference prices are not actual trading prices, which implies when not to use it. However, it does not name the specific sibling tool (e.g., getTradeQuote) explicitly, though 'quote endpoint' is a clear reference.

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