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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the data source (Jupiter) and the liquidity floor of $1,000, explaining why dead tokens are flagged. This goes beyond the structured metadata and helps the agent set expectations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The rationale about liquidity is valuable, but the trailing 'Price: free.' feels extraneous and could be omitted without loss. Overall, it is efficient with only slight redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core outputs (price, change, liquidity, dead flag) and the threshold logic. It does not describe the response structure, but that may be acceptable given the absence of an output schema. It lacks edge-case handling (e.g., invalid mints) but is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context about the input being Solana mints and a limit of 100, which helps interpret the 'mints' array. However, it does not describe the expected format (e.g., base58) or additional constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 returns USD price, 24h change, and liquidity for up to 100 Solana mints, and flags illiquid tokens. It specifies the resource (Solana mints) and the output fields, making its function unambiguous even among many siblings.

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 implies its use for checking token prices but does not explicitly address when to prefer this tool over siblings like token_risk or launch_scan. No alternative routing or exclusion conditions are given; the agent must infer applicability from the general context.

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