Token price

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It states it is 'FREE' (cost implications) and uses aggregated sources with fallback. However, it does not mention failure modes (e.g., what if token not found) or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence with front-loaded 'FREE' and clear purpose. Under 20 words, zero redundancy. Every word adds value.

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 (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers data sources and cost. However, it omits return format (e.g., 'returns a float USD price') and error handling details.

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% (single param 'mint' with description 'SPL token mint address'). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning ('Solana token' aligns with mint address). Baseline 3 as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Aggregated USD price for a Solana token' with specific data sources listed (Jupiter, DexScreener, CoinGecko, on-chain fallback). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'live_prices' which might provide multiple token prices or different sources.

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 usage for getting a single token's price but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'live_prices' or 'circuit_quote'). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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