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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: a $1,000 liquidity floor with the rationale for flagging, explicit error semantics (isError on invalid input or upstream failure, not charged), and a free-cost note. That is rich disclosure that the annotations alone would not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the dead-token rule, then usage and error/pricing details. Dense but every clause earns its place; the billing and error notes add slightly to the length without being wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers scope, liquidity semantics, error behavior, cost, and alternative routing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single mints parameter, so the schema fully documents base58 format and the 1-100 range. The description corroborates the 100-mint cap and the 'by address' framing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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 resource (USD price, 24h change, liquidity) and scope (up to 100 Solana mints) plus the flagging behavior for illiquid tokens. The mention of the liquidity floor and 'dead' flagging distinguishes it from generic price tools in the sibling list.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' section: Solana mints by address, and names the alternative (crypto_price on the A.U.G.U.R Synapse · Chain server) with the exact condition (majors or other chains by symbol) that selects it. No inference required.

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