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 adds valuable context beyond basic functionality: it specifies the cost ('$0.001 USDC per call'), which is a rate-limiting consideration not inferable from the schema. However, it doesn't mention error handling, data sources, or latency, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, return values, and cost. Every sentence adds value (purpose, context, outputs, pricing) with zero waste, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, outputs, and cost. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return value formats (e.g., numeric types) or error cases, slightly limiting completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'symbol' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples beyond 'BTC, ETH, SOL' already in schema). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get the current USD price') and resources ('any cryptocurrency token'), distinguishing it from siblings like crypto_news or wallet_balance. It explicitly lists the data returned (price, change, market cap, coin_id), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 includes explicit 'Use when' guidance: 'when you need the current USD price, 24h change, or market cap of any cryptocurrency.' This clearly defines the context for using this tool versus alternatives like gas_tracker or fear_greed_index, though it doesn't explicitly name exclusions.

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