binance_get_avg_price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: the averaging window concept, the specific API endpoint and weight, the return formats (Markdown vs JSON), and the error handling for invalid symbols. This gives the agent a full picture of how the tool behaves.

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 well-organized with clear headings: purpose, call, when to use, when not, returns, examples, and error handling. It front-loads the core purpose and uses bullet points for efficiency. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 has an output schema (so return structure is documented elsewhere) and only one required parameter, the description is complete. It includes an example, explains the response_format's impact, and covers error handling. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema already provides good descriptions for symbol and response_format, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example with symbol and explains the effect of response_format via the Returns section (Markdown vs JSON). While it does not explicitly name response_format as a parameter, the link is clear. This is a moderate enhancement over schema-only information.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the current average price over Binance's configured window (typically 5 min).' It clearly distinguishes this from the ticker-price tool by naming the sibling in the 'When NOT to Use' section, so an agent can immediately tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 provides an explicit 'When to Use' (smoothed reference price for MARKET order sanity checks) and 'When NOT to Use' (latest tick price, with the alternative tool named). This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over siblings.

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