Get Market Data For Asset

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful scope by specifying 'current' market data and naming returned fields, but it does not disclose further behavior such as data-source compatibility or error handling.

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 compact and readable, with the substantive details contained in the second sentence. The first sentence is a mild restatement of the title and could be trimmed, but overall there is minimal redundancy.

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 both required parameters fully described in the schema, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to invoke this tool correctly. It could be more complete by noting when to choose this over get_symbol_data or by clarifying data_source/symbol compatibility, but the core call context is sufficient.

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 symbol and data_source already described with concrete examples. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema fully documents both required parameters.

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 ('Retrieves') and clearly identifies the resource: current market data for a specific symbol, including price, volume, and market cap. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like get_symbol_data or get_historical_data.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_symbol_data or get_historical_data. The word 'current' implies it is for present market data rather than historical queries, but no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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