get_token_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, but it only states that prices are real-time or historical. It does not disclose how the tool selects the mode, what the response looks like, or any constraints/limitations (e.g., batch size, network requirements).

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, 12 words, immediately front-loads the action and scope. No filler or redundant information.

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 too sparse for a nested input with optional timestamp and poolAddress, and there is no output schema to clarify the return structure. It covers only high-level functionality, leaving the agent to infer important usage details from the schema and sibling names.

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 description adds the meaning that the array input is a list of tokens and that historical pricing is possible, which hints at the optional timestamp field. However, it does not explain that each token requires networkId and address, nor how poolAddress affects results. With 0% schema coverage for the top-level `inputs`, this is only partial compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('token prices'), and clearly scopes results to 'real-time or historical' and 'a list of tokens'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_token_info or get_token_chart_data.

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 choose this tool over siblings such as get_token_pairs or get_token_chart_data. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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