Market Overview

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

Annotations already establish a safe, idempotent, open-world read, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It does add genuinely new behavioral detail: per coin it returns the median Toman price, cheapest and dearest exchange, median 24h change and the number of responding exchanges, which tells the agent this is a cross-exchange aggregate with sampling rather than a single quote. No mention of rate limits, caching or partial-exchange failure behavior.

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: purpose first, then the returned fields, then the sibling routing. Every sentence carries information the agent needs, with no filler or repetition of annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating exactly what each coin's result contains. Combined with the safe-read annotations and a fully documented parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the coins parameter already documents its max of 10 and default list, so the description adds nothing about the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate — the description neither explains nor misrepresents the single optional filter.

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 and resource ('Get the key Iranian crypto rates in one call') plus concrete scope: Tether in Toman and major coins aggregated across all exchanges. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ic_compare_price, so an agent can separate the aggregate view from the per-exchange lookup without opening 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?

Gives clear entry-point guidance ('Start here for "what is the dollar/Tether rate" or "how is the market today"') and names one alternative with its selection condition (ic_compare_price for every exchange's price of one coin). It does not address the other siblings such as ic_top_movers, ic_best_deal or ic_list_markets, so the routing is helpful but incomplete.

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