get_prices

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose useful behavior — prices are mark prices, a venue only appears in a row when it lists the symbol (with the QFEX/BTC example), and unofficialApiVenues flags undocumented-API venues. It still leaves the row structure and other returned fields unexplained, which matters given the absent output schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the three sentences are dense but mostly load-bearing. The trailing 'like get_markets' venueApi tag' comparison and '(none at present)' aside are mild clutter but do clarify a returned field.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains venue-inclusion semantics but not the shape of returned rows (fields beyond unofficialApiVenues, price format, missing-symbol handling). An agent can call it, but cannot fully anticipate the response.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating the example symbols and the 'omit for top assets' default. The description adds no syntax, format, or normalization details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get cross-exchange prices for symbols', and it clarifies these are mark prices aggregated from every venue, which distinguishes it from single-venue tools like get_orderbook. It never explicitly names which sibling to use instead, but the resource and scope are 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?

Usage is implied ('for comparison', cross-venue) but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_markets, get_orderbook, or get_funding_rates, and no exclusions. The get_markets analogy explains a field, not when to call this tool.

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