get_pricing

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description richly discloses behavioral traits such as 'tradeable false outside trading hours or when the market is halted,' null bid/ask when no liquidity, and null spread when either side is missing. It also specifies the time format (RFC3339) and decimal-string representation for prices, which is valuable operational 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 opens with a single concise purpose sentence, then a second sentence enumerates the return fields and edge cases. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient for the complexity of a multi-instrument quote response.

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 description completely specifies the output format, including field names, types, formats, and null behaviors. It also covers the tradeable flag logic, making it self-sufficient even without an explicit output schema shown. The single parameter is fully defined in the schema, so the overall context is complete.

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 covers the parameter fully with a description including format examples ('EUR_USD', 'USD_JPY') and minItems. The tool description adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get the current price for one or more instruments,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from historical data tools like get_candles or get_latest_candles by emphasizing 'current price' and providing a detailed return structure unique to real-time quotes.

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 usage for retrieving current bid/ask/spread data, with explicit mention of market-hours and liquidity conditions. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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