get_token_prices

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context about the data source (DEX-derived) and the per-request cost ($0.005), but it does not describe the return format or error behavior, leaving a moderate transparency gap.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential cost information. Every sentence 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?

For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description gives purpose, input method, and cost, but does not describe the return payload or any additional behavioral details. It is minimally viable but lacks the depth needed for fully confident agent invocation.

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%: the tokens parameter and its nested fields (chain, token_address) are described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond 'by contract address,' which aligns with the token_address field, so the 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'DEX-derived prices for tokens' and identifies the input method 'by contract address.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_crypto_price by emphasizing the DEX-derived nature and on-chain addressing.

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 clearly conveys the context for use: obtaining DEX-derived token prices via contract addresses. It does not explicitly list alternatives or non-use cases, but the DEX/contract-address qualifier provides strong contextual guidance that differentiates it from other price tools.

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