m2m_get_token_price

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

With no annotations, the description does the work: it discloses that prices are 'sourced,' that the result is an 'observation,' and that only 'allowlisted assets' are supported. However, it does not mention failure behavior for non-allowlisted symbols, price freshness, return format, or any rate-limit restrictions, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 facts: what is returned, where prices come from, and the asset limitation. There is no redundant or vague filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the main invocation details and asset scope. However, there is no output schema and no explicit clarification of how m2m_get_token_price differs from the sibling get_token_price, nor what shape the returned price observation takes. These gaps prevent a higher score.

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% and the symbol parameter already includes examples (USDC, WETH). The description adds useful context by noting the assets must be allowlisted and the price is from Base DEX, but it does not add details such as case sensitivity or formatting beyond what the schema provides.

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 clear action ('Return'), a specific resource ('sourced Base DEX token price observation'), and a scope ('allowlisted assets') with concrete examples. Mentioning 'Base DEX' and 'allowlisted' differentiates it from the generic sibling get_token_price.

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 clear context: this tool is for price observations of allowlisted tokens on Base DEX, with USDC and WETH as examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, but the Base DEX and allowlist qualifiers make the intended use obvious.

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