Jupiter prices (Solana)

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses useful edge-case behavior: unknown mints come back with found=false, a 50-mint limit exists, and verbose=true adds the raw payload. These details help the agent predict behavior; no contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentences with no filler. Purpose, limits, edge behavior, and usage context are all front-loaded economically.

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 an output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description covers purpose, source, limits, edge cases, and verbose behavior. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit when-not-to-use note, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already says: up to 50 mint addresses and verbose adding raw payload. It adds no genuinely new parameter-level meaning.

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 returns USD prices for up to 50 Solana mints from Jupiter, with liquidity, 24h change, decimals, and found=false for unknown mints. It identifies itself as a price source alongside dexscreener, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like dex_search or dex_token_pairs.

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?

It gives an explicit use context: 'use as a second price source next to dexscreener.' However, it does not state when not to use this tool or name specific sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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