kraken_get_recent_spreads

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List recent bid-ask spreads' and does not mention pagination, time limits, or historical data characteristics. The term 'recent' is vague, and there is no note about rate limits or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'get' implies it). This is a significant gap for a data-fetching tool.

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 a single sentence of 11 words, front-loading the core action ('List recent bid-ask spreads') followed by the purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 output schema covers return values, and the description explains the basic purpose. However, the 'since' parameter (pagination cursor) is not mentioned in the description, and there is no context about how 'recent' is defined or how this tool relates to similar sibling tools. For a relatively simple 2-parameter endpoint, this is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters ('pair' and 'since'). The tool description adds no additional meaning; it only repeats that an asset pair is involved. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool lists recent bid-ask spreads for an asset pair, which is a specific resource and action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like get_order_book or get_ticker_info, both of which also involve bid/ask data, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'to analyze market depth' gives an implied use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., order book for depth or recent trades for trades). No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are named, so it only meets the implied usage level.

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