edgex_get_ticker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cached contract list and potential subset behavior, which is significant. It also clarifies the omission behavior, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, though 'Get' implies it.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, key data fields, and an important caveat. No wasted words; structure is exemplary.

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-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and parameter semantics, including a notable caveat about caching. It is self-sufficient for the complexity involved.

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 schema covers the symbol parameter with examples (100% coverage), but the description adds crucial semantics: symbol is optional and omitting it returns all contracts, with a caching caveat. This goes beyond the schema's minimum.

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 gets a 24h ticker with specific fields (price, volume, open interest, funding rate). It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like edgex_get_funding, which also covers funding rate, so it does not fully distinguish itself.

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?

Provides a useful parameter behavior note about omitting symbol to get all contracts, including a caching caveat. However, it does not offer guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as edgex_get_funding or edgex_get_kline.

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