get_fan_token_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states it returns price and market data but does not describe what 'market data' includes, whether it's real-time or delayed, rate limits, or data freshness. For a read-only price tool this is a noticeable gap, though not critical.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter read 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, data freshness, and how it differs from similar siblings, which would be helpful for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'symbol' with examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 states a clear verb and resource: retrieving current price and market data for a fan token. It identifies the resource specifically as a fan token, which is more specific than general price tools. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_multiple_prices or get_historical_price_data, leaving the agent to infer the scope from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as get_multiple_prices, get_historical_price_data, and get_market_chart, the description provides no context, exclusions, or alternative suggestions. The agent must guess based on the name.

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