Get Asset Prices

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

With no annotations to carry the safety profile, the description must stand alone. It conveys a read-only retrieval behavior and distinguishes latest vs. historical via phrasing, but it does not mention response format, data source, authentication requirements, or side effects. The core behavior is transparent, yet the description remains thin for a tool lacking annotation-based safety context.

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 a single sentence that starts with the action verb and immediately communicates the core purpose. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important detail (latest or historical) is front-loaded.

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?

The combination of description and schema fully covers invocation parameters. However, because there is no output schema, the description could have clarified the return shape (e.g., 'returns a mapping from asset to price') or specified how historical lookups are triggered. This is a notable gap, though not fatal for calling the 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?

The schema already has descriptions for all three parameters (assets, currency, at_time_ms) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds only high-level context ('specified assets', 'latest or historical') that aligns with the schema, meaning the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('prices') and adds scope modifiers ('latest or historical', 'specified assets'). This makes it unambiguously distinct from siblings like get_portfolio_overview and get_positions, which cover different financial 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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving asset prices, both current and historical. There is no explicit exclusion of alternatives, but none of the sibling tools handle raw price data, so the usage context is clear enough. It misses an explicit 'use when' statement but provides sufficient context.

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