XNO price

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data source ("the median of public price feeds"), signaling an aggregated rather than exchange-specific rate, but omits auth needs, rate limits, and what the response contains for a query with no amount.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the invocation hint; 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally describe the returned shape (rate alone vs. converted amount) and the no-parameter default behavior. It covers the core purpose but stops short of the completeness an annotation-free, output-schema-free tool needs.

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 50% (only amount_xno is described in the schema), and the description compensates partially by framing the two parameters as an either/or conversion input. It does not explain what happens when both or neither are supplied, nor that both are optional, leaving a real gap for a 2-param tool.

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 resource (XNO price in US dollars) and a conversion capability, which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the wallet/payment siblings. It does not name any sibling, but none of them overlap, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

"Give amount_usd or amount_xno to convert" implies how to invoke it for conversion, but says nothing about when to call it with neither parameter (plain price lookup) or whether the two parameters are mutually exclusive. No alternatives exist among siblings, so there is no when-not guidance to give, but the invocation contract is left partly inferred.

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