Grand Exchange prices

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, open-world profile, so the description's added value is the return payload: instant buy/sell prices, their age, margin after GE tax, averages, volumes, buy limit, alch values and batch totals. This is meaningful behavioral context not covered by structured fields, though cursor/pagination mechanics are left to the schema.

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 tightly packed sentences with the usage directive front-loaded and the return inventory following; no filler or redundancy.

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 does the work of enumerating return fields, which is essential and largely complete. A brief note on the cursor-based continuation it returns would close the only remaining gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema's bare 'Item names or ids' by confirming fuzzy-name matching works with a concrete example, and it notes multi-item batching.

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 — retrieving Grand Exchange prices for one or more items — and clarifies accepted input forms (name, fuzzy name, id). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_price_history, which is why it stops short of a 5.

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 leading 'Use for...' clause gives clear usage context and supplies a concrete fuzzy-name example ('d scim'), making invocation conditions obvious. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not conditions (e.g. vs get_price_history).

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