Compare token price to its reference

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

With annotations already declaring the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds valuable context about the computation (comparing on-chain price vs. reference security) and the interpretation of the output (persistent premium/discount implies mint/redeem friction). This goes beyond the trivial read-only description.

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 two concise sentences: the first states exactly what the tool does, and the second explains why the output matters. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and 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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete: it names the input (via schema), states the operation, describes the output (gap in basis points), and gives interpretive context for the result. No critical information is missing for invoking or understanding the 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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter semantics with a clear description of the 'asset' parameter, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ("Compare") and clearly identifies the resources (tokenized asset's on-chain price vs. the security it tracks) and the output (gap in basis points). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_token_market or observe_asset, which target different metrics.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is useful: "A persistent premium or discount is the clearest sign that the mint and redeem path is not clearing..." This implies when to use it (to diagnose clearing inefficiencies), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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