get_token_price

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains what the tool returns (price, pair, liquidity, confidence) and a specific refusal case (dust pool). It does not cover all error scenarios, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise, well-structured, and free of redundant information. It efficiently communicates functionality, inputs, outputs, and a key edge-case refusal in a single paragraph.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return payload. It also mentions the refusal condition and input flexibility. It does not address potential errors (e.g., invalid token), but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide and invoke the 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 schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds value by providing concrete examples for token (CAKE, WETH, ARB) and clarifying that any contract address is accepted. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving live USD prices for ERC-20 tokens from DEX pools. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_liquidity or get_best_venue by focusing on price with specific output details.

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 conditions for use (accepts ticker or contract address) and a refusal condition (dust pool), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over siblings. This leaves some inference to the agent.

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