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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior details: it accepts multiple comma-separated addresses and returns a map keyed by address. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases, error behavior, or chain-specific behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides the key invocation detail (comma-separated addresses) and return shape. 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?

For a simple read-only lookup tool with full schema descriptions and output schema present, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly explain how chain_id influences which chain's prices are returned, though the schema already documents the supported chain IDs.

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%; both chain_id and asset_addresses have descriptions in the input schema. The description mostly reiterates the schema's 'single address or comma-separated addresses' phrasing and adds little new semantic meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('USD prices for asset addresses'), and the output ('price map keyed by address'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like read_asset_list and read_pool_info by focusing specifically on price lookup for arbitrary addresses.

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 implies when to use it—whenever USD prices for asset addresses are needed—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. For example, there is no guidance distinguishing it from read_wallet_balances or read_asset_list.

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