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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which lowers the bar. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: how assets resolve (symbol, coingecko id, contract, mint), the use of DefiLlama's aggregated oracle, inclusion of a confidence score, and the top-1000 market cap symbol resolution with alternatives for ambiguous symbols. This is rich, non-redundant context.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then methodically details resolution logic, symbol handling, and pricing source, finishing with cost. Every sentence contributes new information without padding, and the structure flows logically from what to how.

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 read-only price tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and gives an impression of outputs (price, 24h change, confidence score, alternatives for ambiguous symbols). It does not specify the exact JSON return structure or behavior for unresolvable assets, but these are minor given the annotation safety and the tool's simplicity.

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 descriptions are 100% covered, setting a baseline of 3. The description goes far beyond by explaining the exact string formats for assets (e.g., 'coingecko:ethereum', 'base:0x...', bare 0x with chain, Solana mint) and the chain parameter's role in disambiguating addresses. It also clarifies the max 30 limit and how symbols resolve, making both parameters intuitively clear.

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 explicitly states the tool fetches live USD price and 24h change for up to 30 crypto assets, across any chain, using multiple identifier formats. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'price' and 'price_history' by emphasizing cross-chain capability and identifier resolution, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides strong context for when to use it (any chain, multiple identifier types, ambiguous symbol handling) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It implies use cases via the resolution logic and oracle mention, but lacks explicit exclusion guidance such as 'for single-chain simple quotes use X'.

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