get_market_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool returns data, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or mention authentication or rate limits. For a simple query tool, the absence is not misleading but leaves room for more transparency.

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 immediately states the key elements: latest price, unit, currency, and geography. There is no redundancy or filler, and the essential information is 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?

The description covers the core purpose and scope, and the schema handles parameter details. The output schema exists, so return format is not required in the description. The only minor omission is not explicitly stating that omitting the market parameter returns all markets, but that is documented in the schema. Overall, sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully documented (product enum, market optional with default). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 the tool retrieves the latest price per kg in FCFA for a crop product on Malian markets. It specifies the resource (crop product price), unit, currency, and geography, and is distinct from the sibling get_pest_sheet which concerns pests. No ambiguity remains.

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 does not explicitly contrast with get_pest_sheet, but the purpose is self-evident: use for market price queries. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage. A minor gap in explicit routing guidance prevents a 5.

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