get_market_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions current prices and market depth but fails to clarify that parameters allow historical data retrieval (start_ts, end_ts, interval). The term 'current' is somewhat misleading given the historical capability. No disclosure of auth needs or side effects.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states the main purpose, second lists key outputs. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Seven optional parameters and no output schema leave gaps. The description focuses on 'current' prices but the schema supports historical data, creating inconsistency. It does not explain default behavior (e.g., what happens when no parameters are given) or how token_id and market_id interact.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; parameters like 'market_id' and 'token_id' are self-explanatory. No additional context about parameter interactions or defaults is provided.

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 current market prices and trading data, listing specific outputs like bid/ask spreads, last traded prices, and market depth. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as 'get_markets' (which lists markets) and 'get_order_book' (which focuses solely on order book data).

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 price and trading data but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_trades' or 'get_order_book'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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