getSpreadTickers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's main behavioral contributions are the note that no authentication is required, the possibility of latency during high volatility, and that the response is a list containing one ticker object. These add useful context beyond the annotations, though the description could have been slightly more detailed about the data availability or volume reporting timeframe.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary sentence and uses bullets for readability. The key usage guidance is repeated in both the 'Do not use' section and the agent hint, which is slightly redundant but reinforces critical routing. Overall, every section earns its place and the structure supports quick scanning.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only ticker endpoint with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (last price, bid/ask level 1, 24-hour stats, one ticker object), when to use it, when not to use it, authentication requirements, and how to source the required parameter. Nothing essential for calling this tool correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema only defines `symbol` as a required string with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by stating the symbol is required and instructing the agent to obtain valid symbols from `getSpreadInstrumentsInfo` if unknown. This meaningfully helps the agent supply a valid parameter, though it does not provide a concrete example format.

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 ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource: latest price snapshot, best bid/ask, and 24-hour trading statistics for a spread combination symbol. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming what it is not for (order book depth and recent trades), so an agent can distinguish it without opening other schemas.

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 when-to-use scenarios ('Get the latest traded price', 'Check 24-hour high/low', 'Retrieve best bid/ask') and explicit when-not-to-use instructions with direct alternatives (`getSpreadOrderbook`, `getSpreadRecentTrades`). It also includes an agent hint and guidance on obtaining valid symbols, leaving almost no ambiguity about selection.

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