Get a merged token overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses graceful degradation when either the DEX Screener listing or Jupiter route is missing, which is a key edge-case behavior. For a read-only aggregation tool, this covers the most important operational trait.

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 two focused sentences, front-loading the main purpose and including the critical fallback behavior without wasted words. Every clause adds value.

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?

The description sufficiently explains the data sources, composition, and fallback behavior for a moderate-complexity tool with no output schema. It does not specify the response shape, but for selection and invocation the description is adequate.

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 already documents both chainId and tokenAddress with descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add deeper parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb 'Combines' and names two concrete data sources (DEX Screener market data and Jupiter quote) plus included fields, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_jupiter_quote or get_token_pairs. The tool's scope is unmistakable.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a merged market-data-plus-quote overview in one call. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the composition statement provides sufficient context for appropriate selection.

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