Compare Coin Price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: prices are normalized to Toman or USDT, and exchanges that are down, network-blocked, or unlisted appear under an `errors` key while others still compare. It does not discuss rate limits or return shape in more detail, but the added failure semantics are substantive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and structured into a short paragraph plus two practical notes. Every sentence carries operational value, though the schema already documents the coin/quote symbols, so the 'Use coin=USDT...' sentence is marginally redundant.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return behavior; it does so by stating results are cheapest-first with spread and that failures appear under `errors`. Annotations cover safety, and the description covers failure modes and verification next steps, making it largely complete for a two-parameter read tool. Minor gaps remain around exact response fields and pagination behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining the non-obvious combination 'Use coin=\'USDT\' with quote=\'IRT\' for the Tether rate in Toman,' which clarifies an edge case in how the enum and coin symbol interact.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination ('Compare one coin's price on every supported exchange in one call') and adds output characteristics ('cheapest first, with the spread'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ic_get_ticker and ic_get_orderbook, which it names explicitly.

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?

It states when to use this tool (cross-exchange price comparison) and directs the agent to a specific alternative for verification: 'call ic_get_orderbook on the cheapest and the priciest exchange.' It also instructs the agent to always report missing exchanges and why, giving clear post-call guidance.

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