obol_token_price

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool incurs a monetary cost ($0.005 USDC) and that the price is 'real-time' via Jupiter, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not specify return format, latency, rate limits, or whether any side effects occur. The cost disclosure adds value, but the overall behavioral picture remains thin.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends the critical cost warning. Every word is necessary, no redundancy, and the structure is straightforward. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the tool is simple: one parameter, no nesting, and a clearly stated purpose. The description provides the essential facts (purpose, cost, data source) needed for most calls. It does not detail the response format, but for a price fetch this is often inferable. The cost mention is a notable completeness factor. Overall, adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100% — the only parameter 'mint' is fully documented with an example (USDC address). The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 function: 'Get real-time token price via Jupiter.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'token price' are specific, and the method ('via Jupiter') adds context. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like obol_token_metadata, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the cost ($0.005 USDC) but does not explain scenarios where this tool is preferred over, say, obol_token_metadata or obol_swap_quote. The absence of any 'use this when' context leaves the agent to infer usage.

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