get_batch_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns 'Prices and metadata' and includes a cost ('Price: $0.25'), which adds useful context. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's read-only, rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or what 'metadata' entails. For a financial tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. The cost note is concise. However, the 'Price: $0.25' line feels tacked on without integration into usage context, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., safety, limits) and detailed usage guidelines. The output schema handles return values, so description needn't explain returns, but gaps in other areas keep it from being fully adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters ('tokens', 'chain') and explains 'tokens' as 'List of token addresses to quote' and 'chain' as 'Blockchain network', adding basic semantics. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., token address standards), chain options beyond the default 'ethereum', or validation rules. With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, this provides marginal value.

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: 'Get quotes for multiple tokens in a single request.' It specifies the verb ('Get quotes') and resource ('multiple tokens'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_token_price' by emphasizing batch capability. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_token_price' to fully differentiate usage scenarios.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_token_price' or other sibling tools. It mentions batch capability but doesn't specify thresholds (e.g., 'use for 2+ tokens') or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent lacks clear usage context.

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