get_crypto_spot

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

The description discloses the $0.01 cost and automatic payment from the configured wallet, which are behavioral traits not present in the annotations. It also explains the interpretation of spread (venues disagree, settlement contestable), adding significant context beyond the readOnly/openWorld hints.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with cost, then function, then a caveat. Each sentence earns its place with no redundant phrasing, making it efficiently concise and well-structured.

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 read-only tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: cost, payment behavior, and price interpretation. It does not specify the quote currency or return structure, but given the simple schema and annotation coverage, it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 fully describes the sole 'asset' parameter with examples (BTC, ETH, SOL), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter details, but none are necessary given the schema's completeness.

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 'Live cross-venue spot price' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like resolve_price_event or attest_price_event. It explicitly mentions venue agreement and spread, which uniquely identifies its function.

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 implies usage when a cross-venue spot price with venue agreement is needed and warns about wide spreads being contestable. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the usage guidance merely implied.

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