get_ticker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time' data and 'data verification' via reference ID, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like (e.g., fields returned). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably fetches live market data.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence earns its place by stating the core purpose and a key optional feature.

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 a real-time market data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., price, volume, timestamp), how 'real-time' is defined (e.g., latency), or any behavioral traits like rate limits. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves too many unknowns.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional reference ID for data verification,' which loosely relates to the 'includeReferenceId' parameter but doesn't provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'real-time ticker information for a trading pair', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_instrument_info' or 'get_market_info' by focusing specifically on ticker data, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 like 'get_instrument_info' or 'get_market_info', which might provide overlapping or related data. It mentions an optional reference ID feature but doesn't explain when that should be used.

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