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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: the per-call cost of $0.001 USDC via x402 and the fact that it selects the highest-liquidity pair. This is useful context for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 sentences, both information-dense: the first enumerates the returned metrics and accepted address formats, the second states the cost and payment method. No filler or 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it lists the returned values, chain coverage, address formats, and pricing. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying the quote currency for price/volume, but nothing essential for invoking the tool 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?

The input schema already fully documents the single address parameter, including EVM and Solana formats. The description mostly restates this information without adding substantially new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's function: it returns live DEX spot price, liquidity, FDV, market cap, and 24h volume for a token by contract address, on EVM or Solana. This is specific and informative, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like market_jup_token_prices or market_llama_price_snapshot.

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 intended use is implied: when you need live DEX token metrics by contract address across EVM or Solana. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which alternatives might be cheaper/better suited for similar requests.

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