compare_dex_prices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is a live read, which DEXes are covered, what the comparison output looks like (best price, spread, list of quotes), or whether any permissions or rate limits apply. 'Compare' implies a non-destructive read, but the agent must guess at the rest.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, and the scoping constraint ('on the same network') is front-loaded alongside the core action. 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the comparison returns (e.g., per-DEX quotes, best venue, spread) and any coverage limits. It leaves the return value and DEX coverage entirely unspecified, which is a meaningful gap for a comparison tool whose output shape is unknown.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'symbol' and 'network' documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful semantic that network must match across DEXes ('on the same network'), but it does not add format guidance beyond the schema's example networks.

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?

States a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('token prices across different DEXes on the same network'), which tells an agent this is a cross-venue price comparison rather than a single-price lookup. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_crypto_price or get_dex_info, but the scope is clear enough to distinguish by inference.

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 phrase 'on the same network' implies the tool's operating context and the constraint that both DEXes must share a network, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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