jupiter_getPrice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It mentions 'heuristic prices' and supported info (buy/sell, confidence, depth), which is somewhat informative. However, it does not disclose any side effects, network requirements, or statefulness.

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, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple price query tool, the description mentions key output features but does not specify return format or distinguish from similar tools. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the schema documents the parameters sufficiently. The description adds context about the output (buy/sell, confidence, depth) but does not clarify that vsToken is the quote currency or further parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 real-time heuristic prices for tokens and lists supported features (buy/sell price, confidence, depth). This distinguishes it from Jupiter swap tools, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other price tools like coingecko_getTokenPrice or pyth_getPrice.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include other price fetching tools (coingecko_getTokenPrice, pyth_getPrice) and the description does not provide context for choosing between them.

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