Get Ticker

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent), so the description correctly spends its space on behavioral quirks instead: missing bid/ask for Bitpin, Tabdeal, OMPFinex and Exir, missing volume for Tabdeal, and the fact that an unlisted coin is an error rather than an empty result. It doesn't mention rate limits or response units, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences: what it returns first, then data caveats, then error handling and alternatives. No sentence is filler, and the most decision-relevant information (the returned fields) is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and flags which are absent on which exchange, which is what an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting nulls. Only minor gaps remain, such as not clarifying the quote-currency interaction with returned values.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above it by adding the constraint that coin symbols are exchange-specific and must be validated with ic_list_markets. The quote parameter (IRT vs USDT) is left entirely to the schema, so it isn't fully additive.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (ticker) plus the exact scope: one coin, one exchange, with enumerated fields (price, best bid/ask, 24h range, change, volume). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like ic_get_orderbook and ic_candles without needing their schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives with conditions: ic_get_orderbook when bid/ask is unavailable, ic_candles for price history, and ic_list_markets when a coin isn't listed. It also tells the agent which exchanges lack which data, which is an unusual and useful selection constraint.

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