get_ticker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and adds two useful facts: it is public/no credentials required, and it is deprecated in favor of another tool. It does not cover rate limits, error behavior, or return shape, but for a simple read endpoint the auth and lifecycle disclosures are meaningful additions.

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 compact sentences with the deprecation warning front-loaded, followed by scope, example, and auth note. No filler; every clause 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 one-parameter, non-destructive, deprecated read tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, replacement target, auth requirement, and input example. Nothing an agent needs in order to call or avoid it is missing.

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% and the single parameter already documents the market id with the same 'BTC-USDX-PERP' example used in the description, so the description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the ticker') plus the exact payload scope (last price, bid/ask, 24h stats) for a single market. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the plural sibling (get_tickers/fetch_tickers) and names its own replacement (fetch_ticker).

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?

Explicit when-not-to-use guidance is front-loaded ('Deprecated: use `fetch_ticker`'), naming the exact alternative an agent should select instead. This is the clearest possible routing instruction for a deprecated tool.

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