get_market_data_for_asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it retrieves 'current' data and lists some fields, but does not disclose additional traits like data recency, caching behavior, or rate limits. Given the strong annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool. A slight improvement could be adding structure (e.g., bullet points for returned fields), but it is already concise.

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 simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what data is retrieved and for which asset. However, it does not clarify if the data is real-time or delayed, nor does it hint at the output structure (though an output schema exists). Still, it is adequate for typical usage.

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%, with both parameters (symbol, data_source) well described in the schema. The description mentions 'symbol' implicitly but does not add meaning beyond the schema. The 'data_source' parameter is not mentioned in the description. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Get market data for a specific asset' and specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'market data'. It mentions current price, volume, and market cap, which helps differentiate from historical data tools like 'get_historical_data'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'get_symbol_data' or 'get_asset_profile', so it is strong but not a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_historical_data', 'get_symbol_data'), the agent is left to infer usage from the vague term 'current market data'. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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