get_token_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'real-time' and 'multiple DEX sources,' which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits like rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with the core purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured clearly, though the 'Price: $0.15' at the end is extraneous and doesn't add value, 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 the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is partially complete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output specifics beyond 'Token price in USD with source information,' leaving gaps for effective agent use.

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 adds meaning by explaining 'token_address' as 'The token contract address (0x...)' and 'chain' with options 'ethereum, base, polygon, bsc,' which clarifies beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't cover all parameter nuances, such as format requirements for 'token_address' or default behavior for 'chain.'

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 real-time token price from multiple DEX sources.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('token price'), and scope ('from multiple DEX sources'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_token_metadata' or 'get_trending_tokens'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid token address, and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_batch_quote' or 'get_token_metadata' that might serve related purposes.

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