compare_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior (showing lowest and highest prices), but it does not add context about output structure, data freshness, or possible failure modes. It is not misleading, but it leaves some behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 focused sentence followed by examples. It is front-loaded with the action and scope, and every part earns its place with no redundant 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?

For a single-parameter comparison tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (lowest and highest prices). Minor gaps like handling of invalid symbols are not critical for a tool this simple, so it is nearly complete.

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 symbol parameter is already documented. The description reinforces that the symbol refers to a tradeable asset and repeats the examples, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('price of a specified asset across all exchanges'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_price which presumably returns a single price. It also gives concrete examples (BTC, ETH, SOL) that ground the asset concept.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to compare prices across exchanges and see the lowest/highest values. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_price or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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