Live prices

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

Annotations only cover the read/idempotent safety profile, but the description discloses much more: 'time' semantics in Tehran time, that old values mean the market is closed, that `stale: true` marks quotes older than 2 days, that missing symbols fall back to daily close with `source: history`, and that unknown symbols land in `not_found`. That is rich operational context well beyond the 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?

Opens with what is returned, then layers usage, per-symbol fallback semantics, and the recovery path. Four tight sentences carry no filler and every clause adds call-relevant information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: fields returned, timestamp meaning, staleness flag, source alternation, and the missing-symbol list. An agent can invoke and interpret the response without further data.

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 the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by giving example slugs ('price_dollar_rl', 'geram18', 'sekee', 'crypto-bitcoin') and by defining what happens per-symbol when a slug is absent or unknown (daily-close fallback, `not_found`). It does not restate the 30-item cap, minor since the schema declares it.

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 concrete resource ('Live price, day change, high and low for one or more TGJU symbols') and a clear scope, and 'Use for current rates' implicitly separates it from tj_price_history. It does not name the historical sibling outright, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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 a clear situation ('Use for current rates') and routes the agent to tj_search_symbols twice for resolving unknown slugs, which is a real alternative-selection signal. It stops short of an explicit when-not (e.g. 'for past dates use tj_price_history'), so it falls just under full guideline coverage.

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