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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the exact on-chain sources (PancakeSwap V2 reserves × Chainlink feed) and the absence of any off-chain price API. This goes beyond the safety annotations and gives the agent confidence in the data provenance.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core result (price and market cap) and then supplies the computation method and trust rationale. Every clause earns its place with no filler or 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?

Given the absence of parameters and output schema, the description covers the essential return values (USD price, BNB price, market cap) and the computation sources. It doesn't specify the exact output format or units, but for a simple read-only price tool this is a minor gap. The description is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively complete, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. With no params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description adds relevant context about what the output contains. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 a specific function: providing the live $BOBAI price in USD and BNB plus market cap. It identifies the exact resource and computation method, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bobai_dex_info or bobai_token_info. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 usage for getting current price and market cap data, emphasizing the on-chain trust model. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. An agent can infer the main use case, but direct routing guidance is absent.

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