get_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 burden. It notes the price is 'approximate' and that it queries pool reserves, which suggests read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens if the token is unsupported or if the pool does not exist, or other edge cases.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key purpose and provides immediate, actionable information. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the core functionality and supported inputs. However, it does not describe the return value or error handling, which would be helpful for full completeness.

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 schema covers the single parameter with 100% description. The description adds value by listing supported tokens (SUI, USDC, USDT, WETH, DEEP) and indicating that full coin types are also accepted, which goes beyond the schema's description.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'approximate token price', and explains the mechanism (querying DeFi pool reserves). It also lists supported tokens, making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools like swap_quote or cetus_get_pool.

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 obtaining token prices and lists supported tokens, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools (e.g., swap_quote for prices from a swap perspective). The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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