get_token_prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that prices are 'live' and supports two lookup modes, but says nothing about batch limits (schema allows 50), rate limits, or behavior for unknown symbols. The bracketed tier/API/authority metadata is internal plumbing rather than agent-relevant behavior.

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 core sentence is tight and front-loaded after the bracket. The leading '[Capability: available; tier: ...; API: ...; authority: ...]' block is internal metadata that consumes attention without helping tool selection.

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 output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description should explain the return shape (single price per token? currency field? missing-token behavior) and the 50-item cap. It provides only the lookup modes, leaving an agent guessing at the response payload.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does map both parameters implicitly: 'symbol' → the symbols string, 'network:address token pairs' → the tokens array. However, it never clarifies whether symbols is comma-separated or singular, or whether both parameters may be combined, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 and resource: 'Get live USD prices'. The scope 'by symbol or by network:address token pairs' distinguishes it from quote/execution siblings like get_swap_quote, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as get_swap_quote (which returns executable pricing) despite that being the most likely confusion. The agent must infer that this is a read-only reference-price lookup.

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