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 behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly identifies the tool as a getter (read operation) but adds no further behavioral context such as data freshness, rate limits, or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise with two sentences conveying purpose and differentiation. There is no wasted text, and the key action is front-loaded. It perfectly balances brevity and 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and clarifies the difference from a key sibling. However, it could mention the return type or format (e.g., a number representing the ratio) to be fully self-contained.

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% with the parameter 'token' clearly described as 'Token address'. The description adds the phrase 'reserve ratio' which adds context to the returned value, but provides no additional meaning about the parameter itself. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 gets 'raw token price (reserve ratio)' and explicitly differentiates it from the sibling tool 'get_price' which returns USD price. This is specific and distinguishes it effectively.

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 provides explicit guidance by stating 'Different from get_price (USD)', indicating when to use this tool (for raw reserve ratio) vs alternatives. However, it does not mention any exclusions or conditions for use.

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