onchain-price

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates that the operation is read-only and returns spot price, reserves, and pool address for a Base mainnet AMM pool, but it omits operational details such as freshness, rate limits, error behavior, or authentication requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the output fields and the pool scope.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the required symbol format or the role of asset_class, and gives no usage guidance among many sibling tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the symbol parameter has no property description. The description does not clarify the expected symbol format (e.g., token pair or pool identifier) or how asset_class affects the query, leaving meaningful gaps 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 resource and scope: spot price, reserves, and pool address for one Base mainnet AMM pool. It distinguishes the tool by chain and pool type, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like depth, liquidity-depth, or base-market-data.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as liquidity-depth, depth, or base-market-data. The scoping phrase 'one Base mainnet AMM pool' implies context but does not provide usage conditions or exclusions.

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