feed_price_oracle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the tool builds an unsigned transaction rather than signing or submitting one, and it explains the OracleNft-versus-Pyth distinction. It does not describe edge-case behavior or error conditions, but the core operational behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, immediately states the output format, and then gives the critical applicability constraint. Every clause 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?

For a mutating/administrative tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the output (CBOR hex), the intended signer, and the eligibility constraint. It could add a bit more detail on how the result is returned or what makes an asset OracleNft-backed, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 input schema already describes address, priceNumerator, and priceDenominator, and the asset enum is self-evident from its values. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given 75% schema coverage, but it also does not provide extra guidance such as the relationship between numerator and denominator.

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 specific action ('Feed a new price'), identifies the precise resource ('OracleNft-backed price oracle'), and clarifies what the tool produces ('an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for admin signing'). It also differentiates itself from Pyth-priced assets, making the tool's scope unambiguous relative to its siblings.

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 explicitly defines when the tool applies ('Only applicable to assets whose priceInfo is OracleNft') and when it should not be used ('Pyth-priced assets are updated via signed Pyth messages, not this tool'). It also signals the intended workflow by mentioning admin signing, giving an agent clear selection and invocation context.

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