get_price

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it states the paid nature (0.005 USDC via x402), the upstream source (Jupiter Price API v3), and the 20-token batch ceiling. It stops short of saying what happens on partial failures or whether a failed lookup is still charged.

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 payload and the key constraint are front-loaded, and the whole definition is two tight sentences. The price is stated twice — '0.005 USDC' at the start and again as 'Cost: 0.005 USDC via x402' at the end — which is minor redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers input forms, batch limits, payment, and enumerates the returned fields, which effectively substitutes for a missing output schema. Only edge-case behavior (unknown ticker, partial batch failure) is left out.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the comma-separated format and the 20-token max, so the description only adds the notion that any Jupiter-listed ticker is accepted plus extra examples (BONK, WIF). That is a real but modest semantic addition over 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 names a specific verb and resource ('get Solana token prices') and enumerates the exact data returned: live USD price, 24h change, liquidity, market cap. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, get_token_report, so the agent must infer the split between a lightweight batch price check and a full report.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'up to 20 tokens in one call' signals batch quoting and the symbol-or-mint acceptance tells the agent what inputs are valid. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_token_report or get_rugcheck, and no guidance on what to do when a token is not Jupiter-listed.

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