PCM

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—such as whether it returns real-time or cached data, error handling for invalid symbols, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Get ticker information') and specifies the key differentiator ('for multiple trading pairs at once'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 the complexity of financial data retrieval, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'ticker information' includes (e.g., price, volume, timestamp), how results are structured, error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like 'get-exchange-info'. For a tool in a server with many trading-related siblings, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (exchange, marketType, symbols) with types, enums, and examples. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'multiple trading pairs' relates to the 'symbols' array. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't detract either.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('ticker information for multiple trading pairs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'get-ticker' by specifying 'multiple trading pairs at once', though it doesn't explicitly mention other batch operations or differentiate from other data-fetching tools like 'get-ohlcv' or 'get-orderbook'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when batch retrieval is preferred over individual 'get-ticker' calls, nor does it reference other sibling tools like 'get-markets' or 'get-exchange-info' that might provide related information. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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