What can be priced on one chain

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

No annotations are present, and the description carries the full burden, excelling at it. It discloses that the tool returns a token universe rather than a fixed list, returns 404 when no pool exists, and falls back to a free snapshot without a RapidAPI key, labeled as such. It also notes the paid RapidAPI key requirement, giving complete behavioral transparency.

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 five sentences, each adding a distinct piece of information: main purpose, pair format, universe semantics, fallback behavior, and paid access. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns, and it does so thoroughly: token tickers, DEX venues, default pair, and the difference between the live universe and the fallback snapshot. It also covers error behavior (404) and authentication requirements, making it complete for a one-parameter tool.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'chain' parameter with an enum, descriptions, and a note about numeric IDs not being accepted (100% schema coverage). The description adds contextual value by tying the parameter to chain-specific behavior, but it does not need to repeat the schema. 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?

The description opens with 'Show what is queryable on a single chain' and explicitly enumerates the returned items: token tickers, DEX venues, and the chain default pair. It distinguishes from sibling get_prices by explaining how pair strings are constructed, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 implies usage: it tells users that pairs for get_prices are built from these tickers, so this tool is the prerequisite for constructing price queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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