getPythPrice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'fetches' data, implying a read operation, but does not mention response format, error behavior, rate limits, or validation of feed IDs. This is a significant gap for a tool with no safety 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: the first front-loads the action and parameter options, the second adds useful context about Pyth's catalog. There is no wasted wording, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description explains the purpose and broader asset coverage. However, it does not describe the return structure (e.g., price value, confidence, timestamp), which is important for a price-fetching tool. This gap makes the description adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with 'symbol' described as a symbol or 64-hex-char feed ID. The description essentially repeats the schema text, adding no new parameter semantics. The mention of 'raw Pyth feed ID' is already present in the schema, so no additional value is provided.

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 fetches the latest price from Pyth Network's Hermes API for a symbol or raw feed ID. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning Pyth and its broader asset coverage compared to Chainlink, making the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool: when needing latest prices for assets beyond Chainlink's catalog, noting Pyth's broader coverage. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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