Prices of currency and stackable items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real context beyond them: the source (official Currency Exchange), freshness (last full hour), denominations (Exalted Orbs, Divine Orbs for expensive items), and that prices are trade-derived estimates. It omits any rate-limit or pagination/return-shape detail, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: scope of items, unit/estimation semantics, and the explicit exclusion pointing to the alternative. The most decision-relevant routing cue is front-loaded alongside the resource.

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 read-only two-parameter query with no output schema, the description supplies item scope, price units, and the key sibling exclusion. Return shape (list vs. map, per-item fields) is left implicit, but that is the only meaningful gap for a tool this simple.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both names and league. The description adds item-name examples but no syntax, limits (50 max), or league-default detail beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource (current prices for stackable items) and enumerates the covered categories (currency orbs, runes, soul cores, essences, etc.). It also names the sibling it is not (trade_links for uniques/rares), so an agent can distinguish it without opening another schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: this tool is for exchange-traded stackables, while uniques and rares must use trade_links. It also scopes the data source and time window (official Currency Exchange, last full hour), leaving little to inference.

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