Ripio prices

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat them. It adds useful conditional behavior ('when the pair exists') and specifies the exact price fields returned, going beyond the structured 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 single sentence packs in the resource, the two data domains, the spread, and the comparison purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each clause 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?

The description fully explains what data is returned and under what condition, and an output schema exists to cover return structure. Annotations handle safety and idempotence, so nothing critical is missing for a simple read-only price tool.

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 assets and quote already fully documented. The description reinforces that assets are tickers and that availability depends on the pair, but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('current prices') and enumerates exact data points (buy/sell rates, spread, trade book fields). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like ripio_get_portfolio or ripio_list_open_orders by focusing solely on market pricing data.

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 purpose implies it should be used when current prices are needed, and the phrase 'so app and exchange prices can be compared' describes intent but not explicit selection criteria. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when estimating a trade versus checking live prices.

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