getTokenMultiPrices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about how unknown tokens are handled (omitted from results), which isn't obvious from the schema alone. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, error conditions, response format, or authentication requirements, leaving significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second provides important behavioral context about unknown tokens. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and one behavioral aspect, but doesn't address response format, error handling, or performance characteristics that would be helpful given the lack of structured output documentation.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'array of token addresses' (already in schema) and that unknown tokens are omitted (helpful but not parameter-specific). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get batched prices'), the resource ('multiple tokens'), and the scope ('on a specific network'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like getTokenDetails or getTokenPools by focusing specifically on price retrieval in batch mode, not details or pool information.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when needing prices for multiple tokens on a network. It implicitly suggests alternatives by mentioning that unknown tokens are omitted, but doesn't explicitly name when to use other tools like getTokenDetails for single tokens or getNetworks for network selection.

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