Get Bid-Ask Spreads

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return formats, token requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. It adds minimal information beyond the verb itself.

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 with no wasted words, but it is under-specified to the point of being terse. It communicates the core action but omits helpful details that could be added without verbosity.

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 tool is simple (one array parameter, no output schema), but the description still lacks essential context. It never defines 'spreads', explains how tokens are referenced, or hints at the return shape. Given the absence of annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to reliably select and use the tool among many similar siblings.

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 schema has one parameter (token_ids), and the description's phrase 'for multiple tokens' simply restates the parameter's plurality. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what tokens are, how to format them, or how spreads relate to token_ids, but it does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies the resource ('spreads') with a scope qualifier ('for multiple tokens'), making the core purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_prices or get_midpoint beyond the term 'spreads', and it doesn't explicitly connect to the title's 'bid-ask' phrasing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_prices, get_midpoint, or get_orderbooks. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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