get_prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a '5-minute cache' (important for data freshness) and 'Auth optional' (a prerequisite), but does not disclose behaviors like handling of invalid symbols, rate limits, or response format. While these are relevant, the description only partially covers the behavioral surface.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then appends two useful qualifiers (cache and auth). There is zero waste or redundancy, and every piece of information serves a purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: scope, cache, and authentication. It is sufficiently complete for the complexity level, though it could mention what the response contains (e.g., price data) or error behavior. However, the absence of an output schema means description doesn't need to explain return 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter ('symbols') with a description that includes examples, min/max lengths, and max items. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, and the 'up to 50 symbols' note merely echoes the schema's maxItems constraint. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool provides 'Current prices for up to 50 symbols', establishing a specific verb (get), resource (prices), and scope (up to 50 symbols). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ticker which handles a single symbol, and get_ticker_history/performance which target historical data.

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 implies usage for batch price queries (up to 50 symbols) and notes that authentication is optional, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_ticker. There is no 'use this for X, use other for Y' guidance, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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