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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the pay-per-call cost ($0.02 USDC) and the exact output fields. It does not cover error behavior or data freshness, but for a read-only price tool this is a solid disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs in the resource, the returned fields, and the cost without any fluff. Every part contributes to the agent's decision to call the tool.

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 sufficient for a one-parameter read-only tool: it names the chain, the input address, the output data, and the pricing. Since there is no output schema, listing the returned fields in the description fully compensates.

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 'token' parameter as a base ERC-20 token address, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline.

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 what the tool returns: live price, liquidity, 24h volume, DEX pairs, and onchain token metadata for a base ERC-20 token. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like base_balance and base_contract, which target different resources.

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 this tool: when you need token market data or DEX pairs for a Base ERC-20 token. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools.

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