jingswap_get_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Get' implies a read but read-only/safety is never stated. It does add genuine behavioral value by naming the return payload (Pyth prices with confidence and freshness, XYK pool with TVL, DLMM, derived ratio), which tells the agent what data quality signals to expect.

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 front-loaded and dense with specifics: source, asset pairs, and derived outputs. The trailing tip sentence is a cross-sell that doesn't help an agent call this tool, though it costs little.

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?

No output schema exists, so describing the returned price families is necessary and is done well; the single parameter is schema-documented. The main remaining gap is that no annotations exist to convey read-only/auth behavior, which the description only implies through the verb 'Get'.

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 single 'market' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its default and allowed values. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or examples beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Get current oracle and DEX prices') and scopes it to the Jingswap auction, then enumerates the three price families returned. An agent can distinguish it from generic price tools like styx_price or bitflow_get_quote only implicitly, via the 'used by the Jingswap auction' qualifier.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description ties the tool to the Jingswap auction context, so an agent working on Jingswap cycles can infer it applies. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not rules, and the only cross-reference is a promotional tip to earning_opportunities, unrelated to tool selection.

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