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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world safety profile, so the description adds genuine value on top: it discloses the data source (aggregated market feed), the null behavior for unknown or unpriced mints, and the 50-mint batch ceiling. It does not mention rate limits, freshness/staleness of prices, or latency, which are relevant for a market feed.

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?

One densely front-loaded sentence carrying purpose, scope, and return fields, followed by a short null-behavior note and a disclaimer. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields, the batch limit, and edge-case handling (nulls for unknown mints), which is everything an agent needs to call and interpret results. Nothing material is missing for a single-parameter read tool.

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% with a single well-documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds beyond the schema by stating the 50-mint cap and, importantly, that unrecognized or unpriced mints come back as null rather than erroring — useful input-related semantics not encoded in the 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?

States a specific resource (Solana token mints) and exactly what is returned: USD price, 24-hour change, liquidity, decimals, up to 50 mints per call. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like solana_token_facts and solana_token_search, and the 'aggregated market feed' source plus 'data only, not a recommendation' framing removes ambiguity about intent.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'up to 50 mints in one call' signals batch price lookup, but the description never says when to prefer this over solana_token_facts, solana_token_search, or the swap-quote tools. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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