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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses the live data nature, the chains covered, the input modes (address+chain vs name), and the ambiguity-handling policy. It clearly implies a read-only query operation and gives specific behavioral expectations, going beyond what a simple 'get price' would state.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core purpose, then adds chains, sibling contrast, input usage, ambiguity policy, and use cases. There is no redundancy or fluff; the structure is logical and information-dense.

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?

Without an output schema, the description covers the return fields (price, change, volume, liquidity), the supported chains, the two input modes, and the edge case of ambiguous names. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even including a fallback instruction for handling ambiguity.

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 descriptions for both chain and query, but the description adds critical semantic guidance: instructs to provide a contract address WITH its chain for exact match, and to use a name to search all chains at once. It also explains what happens with ambiguous results, giving practical usage meaning beyond the schema.

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 provides live price, 24h change, volume, and liquidity for any DEX token across many chains, including Solana and Robinhood Chain. It explicitly distinguishes itself from token_price by noting token_price only covers CoinGecko-listed coins and not Solana/Robinhood Chain, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: for tokens CoinGecko does not list, DEX microcaps and memecoins, and non-Ethereum tokens. It also contrasts with token_price, names the alternative, and provides clear instructions for handling ambiguous results (ask for chain/contract rather than picking one). This is explicit when/when-not + alternative guidance.

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