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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context: the $1,000 liquidity floor that flags 'dead' tokens, the reason round-trip quotes mislead on dead curves, and that errors return isError without charging. This goes well beyond the structured fields.

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-loads output and key behavior, then routing, then cost/errors. Mostly earns its place, though the 'Price: free' and error sentences add some parenthetical density that could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description still covers scope, routing to the alternative, the liquidity-floor semantics, cost, and error behavior, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with a single well-documented 'mints' array (pattern, 1-100 items), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's 'up to 100 Solana mints' largely restates the schema's maxItems/address constraints, adding little syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 verb (price) and resource (Solana token mints by address), plus the exact returned fields (USD price, 24h change, liquidity) and the illiquid-token flag. It clearly separates itself from crypto_price for majors/other chains.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('For Solana mints by address') and names the alternative with its condition ('for majors or other chains by symbol use crypto_price'), even pointing to the sibling server. Nothing is left to inference.

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