compareMarketPrices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context: it returns side-by-side best bid/ask prices and explains the verbose parameter behavior (compact vs. full response). No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, zero fluff, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given 3 parameters (one nested object), no output schema, and clear annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's core purpose and output behavior (compact vs. full). However, it lacks detail on the 'params' object structure and identity matching logic, which could be needed for complete agent understanding.

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 67% (exchange and verbose have descriptions, params does not). The description adds overall purpose but does not explain the 'params' nested object structure. It does not significantly compensate for the missing schema detail.

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 uses specific verbs ('compare', 'finds', 'returns') and identifies the resource ('live prices for the same market across venues'). It clearly states the tool's function of spotting price differences via side-by-side bid/ask prices, distinguishing it from single-market fetch tools among siblings.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (comparing prices across venues for the same market), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention specific conditions (e.g., not for single market data). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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