xRocket market snapshot

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

The annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: exact matches are preferred, ambiguous assets are never guessed, and all snapshot data is returned in a single call. No behavioral contradictions are present.

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 tight and front-loaded: it states the action and deliverables in one sentence and then attaches a useful ambiguity guard. Minor redundancy in repeating 'exact' twice prevents a perfect score, but there is no filler.

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?

Given the annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core invocation concerns well: what to pass, what comes back, and how ambiguity is handled. The main remaining gaps are the optional `depth` and `precision` parameters, whose behavior is only discoverable through surrounding schema details.

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 the `market` and `precision` parameters reasonably well, and the description reinforces the exact-symbol semantics for `market`. However, the description does not explain the purpose of `depth` or clarify when `precision` should be provided, leaving those semantics largely up to the schema.

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 ('resolve') and names the resource plus the full set of return contents: market rules, ticker, best bid/ask, recent trades, and fees. It also implies a distinction from the more focused sibling tools by presenting this as a single aggregated snapshot.

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 makes the core usage clear: call it when you need a one-shot market snapshot and can provide an exact symbol or base asset. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to prefer this over the sibling tools such as xrocket_market_tickers, xrocket_market_orderbook, or xrocket_market_trades.

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