get_ticker

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 24-hour rolling window and the returned fields, but it does not disclose update latency, staleness, or error behavior. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage, and there is no contradiction.

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 sentence with the purpose front-loaded and every listed field earning its place. There is no filler, vague phrasing, or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, strong annotations, and a single fully documented parameter, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly for a single-symbol ticker request. The only notable gap is sibling routing, which is already addressed in the usage_guidelines score.

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%, and the schema already documents the symbol parameter thoroughly, including formatting, case-insensitivity, and normalization examples. The description only reinforces that one symbol is accepted, which adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource (a single symbol's ticker) and the specific data returned: current price, 24-hour rolling statistics, best bid/ask, volume, and trade count. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', and it does not explicitly name sibling tools, though 'one symbol' and '24 hour rolling statistics' help separate it from get_klines and get_order_book.

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 this tool is for current/24-hour snapshot data for one symbol, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives among the sibling tools. An agent must infer that get_klines is for historical candles and get_order_book is for depth data.

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