get_dex_vs_cex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions the cost ($0.003 USDC) and the asset scope, but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, data sources, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a tool without annotation support.

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 one sentence combining the core function and the cost, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

While the tool is simple and the description covers purpose and cost, the lack of an output schema means the agent must infer what 'spread analysis' includes. The description does not explain the return format or any limitations, so it is minimally complete but has gaps.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context by specifying the assets (BTC/ETH/SOL) and the comparison nature, which helps the agent understand what the tool processes without needing parameter documentation.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'DEX aggregated prices vs CEX prices with spread analysis' for specific assets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crypto_prices (which are general prices) and get_arbitrage_opportunities (which focus on profitable differences).

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 implies a clear usage context: when you need to compare DEX and CEX prices or analyze spreads for BTC/ETH/SOL. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specific scope provides clear context.

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