get_chainlink_price

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details but only repeats the basic operation without explaining data aggregation, decimal normalization, error handling, or network-specific behavior. It does not mention that the `network` parameter defaults to BSC or that some pairs might not be available on all networks. This transparency gap prevents the agent from anticipating common failure modes.

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 sentence with no wasted words, making it efficient and front-loaded. However, it is arguably too minimal, leaving out useful context that could be included without bloat. As a structural score, it earns high marks for brevity but not for informational richness.

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 tool has no output schema, so the agent lacks information about the return format (e.g., raw price, decimal adjustment, timestamp). The description also omits supported feed pairs beyond the schema examples and network behavior, which are important for a price oracle tool. Given the low description depth and absence of annotations, the context is incomplete for reliable usage.

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 provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (pair examples, network default and explanation), so the description adds no new parameter information. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies. The description neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 function: retrieving a price from a Chainlink price feed. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Chainlink price feed'), distinguishing it from generic price tools like get_multiple_prices or get_uniswap_pool_price, though it does not explicitly compare. It could be more explicit about the pair parameter, but overall purpose is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings such as get_custom_price_feed, get_uniswap_pool_price, or defi_get_token_prices. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or alternative tools. This leaves the agent to infer applicability solely from the tool name and schema.

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