Oracle Price-Source Family Map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the scope (30+ venues) and cost ($0.001 USDC), which is behavioral information beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful: first states the action, second provides usage context, third mentions cost. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, why it's useful, and the cost. It is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke 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?

Input schema has no parameters (0 params), so baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds meaning by indicating what the output will be used for, though parameter-specific semantics are not applicable.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns oracle family classification for 30+ perp venues, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (funding, spread, coverage, health, list) by focusing on price source families.

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?

Description provides context for usage: useful for basis-risk awareness in cross-venue strategies and highlights that venues sharing price sources offer no genuine arbitrage edge. It implicitly guides when to use this tool (when assessing arbitrage opportunities) but does not explicitly name exclusion criteria or alternatives.

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