chainpeek: USD price and pool liquidity of a Solana token by mint, read from chain

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

Goes well past the annotations (which only declare read-only/idempotent/open-world) by disclosing 15-second caching, pool-source coverage, error semantics (422 no_pool, 422 malformed before payment, 503 unreachable/stale/failing RPC, none charged), latency of 1-4 s, and payment/free-tier terms. This is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and efficient, but the error/payment information is stated twice in near-identical form: 'no pool is a 422 no_pool and an unreachable pool list or stale oracle a 503 (neither charged)' and 'A malformed input is a 422 before payment and a failing RPC read a 503 (neither charged).' That duplication costs it a point.

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 already present, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers coverage scope, caching, latency, failure modes, and cost. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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% and the single mint parameter is already fully documented in the schema (SPL Token or Token-2022, base58, length bounds). The description adds only 'by mint address', which restates the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Get the USD price and liquidity of a Solana token by mint address') and immediately names the sibling it is not for ('For large recent trades use get_large_solana_token_trades'). An agent can distinguish it from get_solana_token_info, get_token_price, and get_dex_price_candles without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes one case to an alternative (large recent trades -> get_large_solana_token_trades) and constrains coverage to Raydium/Orca/Meteora pools against USDC/USDT/SOL on mainnet. It gives clear qualifying context but no explicit 'do not use for X' exclusions beyond the one sibling named.

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