Latest crypto quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful unit clarification ('sizes in base units'), but says nothing about rate limits, venue aggregation, or freshness/latency of the 'latest' data.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant qualifier ('latest') plus the unit caveat are packed into the front of the line. Nothing to trim.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden. It hints at the shape (best bid and ask, sizes in base units) but omits the actual field names, timestamp semantics, and whether multiple venues/levels are returned — real gaps for a quote tool.

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%, and the schema already documents the tickers array as BASE/QUOTE pairs with 1-200 limits. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the 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?

The description names a specific resource (crypto pair best bid/ask) and qualifies it as 'latest', which tells an agent this is a top-of-book snapshot rather than a trade or bar series. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like crypto_quotes or crypto_snapshots, which an agent must resolve on its own.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus crypto_quotes, crypto_orderbooks, crypto_latest_bars, or crypto_latest_trades. The agent gets no explicit context or exclusions, only an implied 'use it to get quotes'.

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