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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only names the metrics being compared and does not mention output format, data sources, whether the operation is read-only, or any limitations around the comparison.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the purpose in a single line with no filler. It is telegraphic but efficient, though it could benefit from a proper sentence structure.

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?

The description is minimal for the information an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly. It does not explain what labels and tokens should contain, what the comparison output looks like, or any caveats, and there is no output schema or annotation to fill the gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and the schema parameter descriptions ('Labels to process', 'Tokens to process') are quite vague, but the high coverage meets the minimum threshold.

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 job: compare tokens side-by-side on price, liquidity, and volume. This distinguishes it from single-token tools like token-price, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 by the description: use this tool when you need to compare multiple tokens across financial metrics. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related token tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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