market_coingecko_token_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'gets' the price, but does not mention any limitations, return format, error cases, rate limits, or whether multiple addresses are supported. This is a minimal description with no additional behavioral context.

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, clear sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could have used the space to add usage context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the response contains, whether the price is real-time, or any chain-specific nuances. This is inadequate for a price tool with several configurable flags.

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 has 100% coverage: every parameter is described with its type and purpose. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema. According to the guidelines, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's function: getting a token price via contract address for standards like ERC20 and BEP20. The verb 'Get' and resource 'token price by contract address' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool market_coingecko_contract, which likely serves a similar purpose, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 like market_coingecko_simple_price or coingecko_get_prices. The description only implies usage for contract-address-based tokens but does not state exclusions or provide decision criteria.

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