Get EMC swap limits and rate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description reinforces read-only and adds specific details about returned fields, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. It uses inline code formatting for clarity and remains concise despite covering multiple aspects.

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?

Given no parameters and existence of output schema, the description explains the key output fields and their usage. However, without seeing the output schema, it's possible some fields are not fully described, but the description seems sufficient for an agent.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameters. It instead provides detailed semantics for the output fields, which helps in tool selection.

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 clearly states it returns current order denominations and fixed rate for buying EMC, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling buy_emc by saying 'Call this first to choose a valid amount for buy_emc.'

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?

It explicitly instructs to call this first before buy_emc, implying the usage context. It also states it is read-only, but does not explicitly exclude other siblings like cancel_order or get_order_status.

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