get_dex_spot_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the meaningful behavioral trait that this is a legacy alias, but it says nothing about whether the alias still forwards successfully, whether it behaves identically to get_dex_price, or whether payment_signature is required for calls to succeed.

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 short bracketed clauses, deprecation status front-loaded, replacement named immediately. Nothing extraneous.

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 deprecation stub whose main message is 'don't use this', the redirect is arguably sufficient. However, if an agent must invoke it for backward compatibility, it gets no parameter semantics, no output shape, and no confirmation the alias still works.

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 0% and neither of the two parameters (pair, payment_signature) is explained in the description or schema. The description does not compensate at all; only 'pair' is loosely inferable from the tool name and its WETH-USDC default.

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 identifies the tool as a backward-compatible alias and names the canonical sibling, 'get_dex_price', that supersedes it. Combined with the name, an agent can tell this is a legacy spot-price endpoint distinct from its replacement, though the description never states the actual function (fetching a DEX spot price) in its own words.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use get_dex_price instead.' That is exactly the when-not-to-use-this / use-alternative signal an agent needs, with no inference required.

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