get_ticker_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses authorization and cost (API key or x402, $0.01), a key operational detail. It also explains the edge threshold and node source behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe rate limits or output format, so it is not 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?

The description is extremely concise—two sentences plus a cost note—and front-loads the core concept. Every word adds value: graph type, node source, edge threshold, and a key use instruction. No redundant 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?

While the description explains the core logic and the symbol omission case, it does not describe the return format or structure of the graph (e.g., list of nodes/edges, adjacency matrix), and there is no output schema to fill that gap. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, the description is adequate but leaves significant ambiguity about the exact response shape.

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 description mostly rephrases existing parameter descriptions (e.g., 'edges above minCorrelation (0–1)' mirrors the schema's 'Minimum absolute correlation (0–1) for an edge'). It ties the parameters together conceptually but adds little new parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 explains the tool produces a price-correlation graph, with nodes derived from co-occurrence or trending data and edges filtered by a correlation threshold. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ticker_related or get_trending by specifying the graph structure and threshold-based edge construction.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: 'Omit symbol for trending-based graph' tells when to omit the symbol parameter and implies two usage modes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it is not a full 5.

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