get_custom_price_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without revealing potential error conditions, return format, or behavior on invalid addresses. The read-only nature is implied by the name but not explicitly stated, and there is no context about rounding, decimals, or network fallbacks.

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 concise sentence of nine words, front-loading the main action and resource. It contains no filler or redundancies, though it is so brief that it leaves out valuable context, preventing a 5.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably sparse. It does not explain the price format, units, or expected return value, nor does it mention common pitfalls. The lack of sibling differentiation and behavioral details leaves the tool under-specified for an agent navigating a large toolset.

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 100%, with both parameters ('network' and 'feedAddress') having clear descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure: 'Get price from a custom Chainlink price feed address'. The word 'custom' clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_chainlink_price which presumably handles standard feeds, and it directly indicates the tool's purpose.

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 alternatives such as get_chainlink_price, get_available_price_feeds, or check_price_feed_health. There are no exclusions or context signals describing preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the name.

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