get_ticker

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a read-only snapshot with specific fields and explains the format of price_variation_24h. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or authentication, but as a simple read tool, the disclosure is adequate.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and details. The example is relevant and adds value. No unnecessary words.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values. It lists all key fields and explains the price_variation format. It could mention the exact JSON structure, but for a ticker, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter market_id. The description adds context by providing examples (e.g., 'BTC-CLP') and explaining that prices are in the quote currency, which goes beyond the schema description.

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 what the tool returns: a market snapshot with specific fields (last price, bid, ask, volume, price changes). It distinguishes from siblings like get_orderbook or get_price_history by focusing on current ticker data. The example query reinforces the purpose.

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 current price queries via an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like get_market_summary. There is no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.

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