Get market spot prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the operation is 'live' (not historical), the full list of 28 supported tickers bounds the response, and the 'not a trading feed' warning discloses freshness/latency limitations that no annotation encodes.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded, but roughly two-thirds of the text is a raw comma-separated ticker dump that could have been summarized (e.g. '28 proof-of-work coins') with the full list deferred to the response payload. The caveat sentence is compact and earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: it names the source endpoint, states that results are live spot prices, and bounds the asset universe. It stops short of saying how prices are quoted (fiat/base pair) or how current the data is, which would be needed for an agent to reason about the response without calling it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The asset enumeration does useful work by making clear that no symbol filter exists — the call returns all listed assets at once.

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 states a specific verb and resource (live spot prices for a named set of assets) and enumerates the exact asset universe covered, so an agent knows precisely what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_market_data, which by name sounds nearly identical — that differentiation is left entirely to the agent.

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?

'Prices can move; not a trading feed' is a caveat that implicitly excludes trading-critical use, but no alternative is named and no positive when-to-use condition is given. With siblings like get_market_data, list_mrr_rates and calculate_profitability in the same namespace, the description provides no routing guidance at all.

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