get_ticker_performance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context: the data is tracked from the time of signal detection, and the tool requires an API key or x402 payment ($0.005). However, it does not mention return format, error handling, or rate limits, so it is only partially transparent.

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 primary purpose, lists the specific return windows, and ends with the payment requirement. Every piece of information earns its place with no redundant or filler wording.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's function and key behavior (return periods and access requirements). It lacks explicit return format details, but for a simple single-parameter read tool, the provided information is largely adequate.

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% with the only parameter 'symbol' described as 'Ticker symbol'. The description reinforces that the symbol is a ticker but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 gets price performance data for a ticker, listing specific return periods (1-day, 3-day, 7-day, 30-day). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('price performance data'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_ticker_history or get_prices which likely serve different data purposes.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need performance returns over specific windows. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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