Current crypto token price by chain + contract address (DefiLlama). Works for tokens that price-by-symbol APIs miss.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | e.g. ethereum, base, arbitrum, solana | |
| address | Yes | Token contract address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the data source and signals a read-only lookup, but it omits important behavior such as price denomination, response format, failure modes, or unsupported-chain handling.
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 two concise, well-front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence identifies the operation and inputs, while the second explains the differentiating value.
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 simple two-parameter lookup, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns conceptually, the source, and when it applies. It would be fully complete if it stated the output format or price currency, especially since there is no output schema or annotations.
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 fully documents both parameters, including chain examples and the meaning of address. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate for 100% schema description coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's core purpose: returning the current crypto token price for a given chain + contract address, with DefiLlama as the source. It also differentiates itself from broader price-by-symbol APIs, making its niche clear even among finance-related sibling tools.
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 sentence 'Works for tokens that price-by-symbol APIs miss' gives a strong signal for when this tool is useful. It implies the alternative is a symbol-based price lookup, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct by resource or function, but fx_rates vs us_treasury_fx and entity_resolve vs lei_lookup could both be plausible choices for the same request. Descriptions generally make the boundaries clear, so the overlap is minor rather than systematic.
All names use lowercase_snake_case, but there is no single naming pattern: tools like btc_network, crypto_price, and weather_forecast are noun phrases, while eu_vat_validate, lei_lookup, and sanctions_screen follow an object+operation style. This mixed convention is readable but noticeably inconsistent.
14 tools is within a reasonable range for a multi-provider data server, and most tools cover a distinct data domain. However, kyb_verify_business heavily overlaps the individual VAT, LEI, sanctions, IBAN, and entity tools, and having two FX rate tools makes the set feel slightly broader than necessary.
The main KYB/entity workflow is well covered, but the set has notable gaps: sanctions screening covers only OFAC and UK OFSi, IBAN validation is structural only, and there are no UBO or adverse-media checks. For the broader data-lookup domain, the coverage is decent but not exhaustive.