Get Fair Price Data Sources

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates the tool is read-only, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds that it returns data but does not discuss side effects, permissions, or failure modes. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise, using two short sentences (Japanese and English) to convey the same information. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The description clearly specifies what data is returned (sources, update date, regional multipliers), which gives a good understanding of the tool's output. Although there is no explicit output schema, the description provides sufficient context for the expected result.

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 input schema has no parameters (coverage 100%). Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is given. Since there are zero parameters, the description cannot add parameter details, so 3 is fitting.

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 returns sources, update date, and regional multipliers for HORIZON SHIELD fair-price data. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_price_range (which returns a price range) and verify_fair_price (which checks fairness).

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use to check the basis of a price.' This indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it. Still, the guidance is clear and practical.

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