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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context — and it does, disclosing the data provenance (PancakeSwap V2 pair reserves × Chainlink BNB/USD feed, no off-chain price API). It stops short of stating freshness/staleness or caching behavior for the word 'live'.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and outputs before the routing advice to bobai_liquidity. The parenthetical computation formula is slightly dense but carries trust-relevant meaning rather than filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description names what comes back (USD price, BNB price, market cap) and the trust model. Only minor gaps remain — nothing about refresh cadence or failure modes if the pair/feed is unavailable.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify. It correctly adds nothing about inputs.

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 resource and verb ('Live $BOBAI price') plus the exact output dimensions (USD, BNB, market cap), and explicitly distinguishes itself from bobai_liquidity. An agent can separate it from bobai_token_info, bobai_dex_info, and bobai_circulating_supply without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('use it for the price now') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('for depth and price impact at a size use bobai_liquidity'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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