Get eToro bid/ask rates

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is the caveat that these are eToro's own quotes rather than the underlying venue's prices, which is genuinely decision-relevant for an agent. It does not discuss failure behavior for unknown ids or rate limits, keeping it short of 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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the core operation stated first and the important quote-source caveat second. Both sentences earn their place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (bid and ask) and the quote provenance, so an agent knows what comes back. Only minor gaps remain around id validity and error behavior for a tool this simple and well-annotated.

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 0% for the single instrumentIds parameter, so the description must carry the load. It conveys the id-based array and the 100-item ceiling, matching the schema's maxItems, but adds no clarification on id format, ordering, or error handling for invalid ids.

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 (current bid and ask) plus a scope limit (up to 100 instruments by id), which separates it from sibling lookups like etoro_get_instruments or etoro_get_trade_history. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any pointer to etoro_get_instruments as the source of the ids this tool requires. The 'by id' phrasing implies a prerequisite lookup, but the routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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