get_summary_lite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the response field set is fixed and controllable via select_identifiers, and that the endpoint returns a focused subset. However, it does not mention the output format, potential errors, or always-returned fields like 'symbol' and 'logo' (which appear only in the schema). This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 four sentences and mostly to the point. The first two sentences are somewhat redundant ('focused snapshot of key identification, market, and fundamental data' vs. 'core identification, current pricing, key valuation metrics, and fundamental data'), but the essential information about field control and the alternative endpoint is included without excessive verbosity.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, field selection, and the alternative comprehensive endpoint. It gives a reasonable sense of the response contents (identification, pricing, valuation metrics, fundamentals). However, it does not specify the exact response structure or any prerequisites beyond symbol, leaving minor gaps given the lack of an output schema.

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 explains all three parameters. The description adds some context for select_identifiers by stating it controls which fields are included, but this largely parallels the schema's own description. No new parameter semantics are introduced beyond the schema baseline.

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 the tool 'Returns a focused snapshot of key identification, market, and fundamental data for a single asset symbol,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from get_summary by explicitly noting the focused nature and directing users to the comprehensive endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (for a quick, focused snapshot) and explicitly provides an alternative: 'For a comprehensive field set use the /v1/summary endpoint.' This gives clear context for choosing between tools, though it does not enumerate all possible alternatives or exclusions.

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