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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context: it pulls from the highest-liquidity pool and costs $0.01, which are not in annotations. 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?

The description is two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the unique differentiator and cost. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, all documented) and that annotations cover safety, the description provides enough context for an agent to call it correctly. It mentions the source (highest-liquidity pool), the unique time-series nature, and cost. Without an output schema, it hints at the return format (OHLCV candles) but doesn't detail it, which is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (mint, limit, timeframe) are already documented with clear descriptions. The description adds contextual meaning by mentioning OHLCV candles and highest-liquidity pool, but this doesn't go beyond what the schema already implies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters fully.

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 OHLCV candles for a Solana token from its highest-liquidity pool, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it's the only time-series data in the catalog. The verb and resource are clear, and it differentiates from other point-in-time snapshot endpoints.

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 states this is the only time-series data and every other endpoint is a point-in-time snapshot, which tells the agent when to use this tool (for historical price data) and implies alternatives for snapshots. It also mentions cost, which is a usage consideration. It doesn't name specific sibling tools, but the general distinction is sufficient.

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