get_current_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return shape but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose any side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The implicit 'Get' suggests a safe read, but without an explicit statement or annotation, the behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and resource are stated first, followed by the return type. This is a model of efficient, front-loaded communication.

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 simple getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and return type but leaves gaps. It does not explain edge cases, error behavior, or whether the 'current' price is real-time or snapshot-based. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including the side enum and its default. The description adds no additional meaning about how the side parameter affects the output or how token_id should be formatted. Since the schema is complete, the 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get current bid/ask prices for a token.' It also specifies the return type (PriceData with bid, ask, mid), which helps an agent understand the output. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_orderbook or get_spread, but the focused phrasing on 'current bid/ask prices' is sufficiently specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_orderbook, get_spread, or get_price_history. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and schema alone.

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