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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses endpoint binding, cost expectations ('cheap call'), conditional behavior with wallet_signature, and the privacy guarantee that address ownership is never revealed without it. It also enumerates the possible price_kind values, which is valuable runtime context.

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?

Three dense sentences carry all the essential information with no filler. The endpoint and core value are front-loaded, and the optional-signature caveat is clearly separated at the end.

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 readOnly annotations, an output schema, and full parameter coverage, the description provides everything needed to call and interpret the tool: the path, the data, the optional auth-like parameter, and the privacy boundary. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the baseline is already strong. The description adds the key semantic link that wallet_signature changes the response semantics, and it implicitly maps owner/slug to the URL path. This exceeds baseline without needing to compensate for sparse 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 states a specific operation ('Wraps GET /api/v/:owner/:slug') and the exact data it returns: latest version, publication time, and price. It also clarifies the optional wallet_signature mode, which changes the response to include ownership and price_kind, separating it from the listing/purchase sibling tools.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'the cheap call to make before every run.' It also warns that without wallet_signature the API never reveals address ownership, which guides call construction. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer them.

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