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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data comes from two independent sources, the spread is reported and itself meaningful, and there is a specific cost. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, and the cost/polling note is placed second as a natural usage qualifier. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only endpoint with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned (price, liquidity, spread), the source behavior, and cost. It does not specify units or output shape, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make this a minor gap.

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% and the only parameter, mint, is already described as a Solana mint address. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (Solana token), a concrete operation (fetch price and liquidity), and a distinctive differentiator (two independent sources with reported spread). This clearly separates it from siblings like check_token_security or get_price_history.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: it is the cheapest endpoint and 'built for polling,' implying repeated low-cost checks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the polling/cost framing is strong usage guidance.

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