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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the aggregation behavior (cross-provider consensus) and the manipulation-resistance trait, but omits operational details like what happens if a provider is missing, staleness handling, or possible errors.

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, front-loaded with the core action, no filler.

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 read-only aggregation tool with full schema coverage but no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain the response shape (single price vs per-provider breakdown) or how missing providers affect the aggregate. A 3 fits an adequate-but-shallow definition.

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% and enum values are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides (symbol, chain filter, method). Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Specific verb (Get) + resource (aggregated consensus price) + scope (across multiple oracle providers). Distinguishable from siblings like get_oracle_price (single source) and compare_oracle_deviation.

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?

Says 'Useful when you need a robust, manipulation-resistant reference price,' which implies usage context but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternatives. No mention of when to use get_oracle_price vs this tool.

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