Token price & liquidity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully notes the tool is paid and reveals the cost structure. However, it omits details such as error handling, rate limits, or whether the token parameter accepts symbols or only contract addresses, which limits full 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 extremely concise, front-loading the core function in one sentence and adding the essential payment note in a second. No filler words or redundant details.

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?

Considering the simple two-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (list of metrics) and the key context of it being a paid call. It could elaborate on response structure or default chain behavior, but for a low-complexity read tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds slight context (e.g., 'from DEX pairs') but does not offer additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 returns live price, liquidity, 24h volume, FDV, and market cap for a token, specifying the data source as DEX pairs. This distinguishes it as a market data tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like token_supply or token_rugcheck.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any conditions or exclusions mentioned. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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