defi_get_token_prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the purpose without mentioning side effects, rate limits, response format, or whether any address validation occurs. It gives no safety or performance cues.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the core information is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter, so the description is mostly sufficient. However, the absence of any caveats, chain support details, or differentiation from similar tools in the large sibling list leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding between this and other price-fetching 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?

The schema provides a clear description of the 'coins' parameter with an example format, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no further semantic detail, but the schema already documents the required structure adequately.

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 action ('get current prices'), the resource ('tokens by contract address'), and notes multi-chain support. It is specific enough to distinguish from history or balance tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other similar price-fetch tools like coingecko_get_prices or get_multiple_prices.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling price-related tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or limitations such as supported chains or how to resolve token symbols.

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