get_latest_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does a good job: it explains the return format (JSON with date, value, type, source), documents the null-return case when no price exists, and explains the currency defaulting behavior. It could disclose more (e.g., error handling, whether latest means by date), but the key behaviors are covered.

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 well-organized with Args and Returns sections, and each parameter gets a one-line explanation. It's moderately compact without wasted words. Minor inefficiency: currency explanation is slightly redundant ('Defaults' vs 'Pass explicitly' could be tighter), but the structure is clean and front-loaded with the purpose statement.

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?

Despite having no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters with examples, return format, and edge case (null). Since an output schema exists, the Return shape doesn't need full elaboration. For a read tool with good sibling differentiation, this is reasonably complete. Could add a note on when get_prices would be preferred for historical data, which prevents a 5.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters, and it does well. It explains commodity with an example ('VTSAX'), namespace with an example ('FUND'), and currency with its defaulting behavior and when to pass it explicitly. This meaningfully enhances what the bare schema (just string titles) provides.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the most recent price for a commodity, specifying a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like get_prices (plural, likely range-based) and delete_price by explicitly targeting the 'most recent' price. The 'Returns' section clarifies output format (date, value, type, source) and documents the null-return behavior, making the purpose fully clear.

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 clearly explains when to use this tool (to get the latest price) and how to handle currency (explicitly passing currency to get non-default quotes). It does not explicitly name alternative tools like get_prices for historical queries, but the sibling context plus the 'most recent' emphasis implies the differentiation. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so not a full 5.

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