Get live rates

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates a read-only operation. The description adds that the tool returns bid/ask rates, which is helpful but does not go beyond what annotations provide. It does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like rate limits or data freshness, but given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by mentioning that it retrieves rates for an array of IDs, but it remains efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not thorough. It does not explain the structure of the response (e.g., mapping of instrument IDs to rates) or any constraints like maximum number of IDs. For a tool with such low complexity, it meets a minimum viable standard.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (instrumentIds) with a clear description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 retrieves live bid/ask rates for one or more instruments. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('live bid/ask rates'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'etoro_get_candles' or 'etoro_get_closing_prices' by focusing on current rates.

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 live rate retrieval but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that it is preferred over 'etoro_get_candles' for current rates or that it is not for historical data. This lack of explicit context leaves room for ambiguity.

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