Get Ticker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the data is 'real-time'; it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, caching/staleness, or whether a missing pair errors or falls back. For a read-only market-data call these gaps are moderate but real.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing content.

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 one required, fully documented parameter and no nesting, the input side is covered. However, there is no output schema, so an ideal description would say what a 'ticker' contains (last price, bid/ask, volume, timestamp); the agent must assume the conventional shape.

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 'pair' is already documented with examples, making 3 the baseline. The description's '(default: BTC/USD)' note adds a little information the schema lacks — though it mildly conflicts with the schema marking 'pair' as required.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('real-time ticker data for a trading pair'), which clearly identifies it as a live-quote snapshot tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_ohlc_data or get_recent_trades, so it falls 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_ohlc_data, get_order_book, or get_recent_trades — all closely related market-data siblings. The word 'real-time' hints at a current-snapshot use case, but the agent must infer that routing decision entirely on its own.

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