dexscreener_token_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no rate limits, no coverage of chains or pairs, no behavior for unlisted or ambiguous tokens, and no indication of response size. 'Audit' is loosely used for what is actually a read-only data pull, adding no behavioral detail.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the data domains are front-loaded before the source. It is efficient, though the fragment structure gives no action or scope statement to anchor the rest.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup this is close to adequate: annotations cover safety, schema covers both params, and the description lists the data categories returned. It is still thin on supported chains, missing-data behavior, and whether results are per-pair or aggregated, which matters for a market-data tool with no output schema.

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% (chain_id documented as the network with a 'base' default, token_address as a 0x contract address), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description does not add anything about chain coverage, address formats, or how chain_id interacts with token_address, so 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?

The description names the concrete data domains (liquidity, pair volume, pricing) and the upstream source (DexScreener), so an agent knows what it retrieves. It lacks an explicit verb and never says 'fetch/return', leaving the action implied rather than stated, but the resource is unambiguous and no sibling tool overlaps with DEX market data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus anything else, no mention of which chains are supported beyond the schema default, and no note on what to do when a token is not listed on DexScreener. The agent must infer the applicable scenario entirely from the noun phrase.

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