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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the cost ("Uses 2 API calls") and the data-availability gap where non-scored markets return node data only (positions, levels, liquidations). No return format or pagination detail, hence not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the resolution purpose, with the scored/non-scored caveat and API-call cost appended. Slightly dense but no wasted clauses.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: scored markets yield scores/funding/depth/volume, others node data. Cost in API calls is also disclosed. Missing only field-level return detail, which is acceptable for a small registry lookup.

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 100% with a single optional query parameter, and the schema's own description gives examples ("pepe", "bitcoin"). The description adds no matching syntax or filtering nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It states a specific resource (market symbols LiqFlow covers) and the concrete job it performs: resolving a human-readable name like "solana" to the venue symbol SOL. That alone separates it from data siblings such as coin_snapshot or funding, which consume symbols rather than resolve them.

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 clearly frames the use case (name-to-symbol resolution) and explains the scored vs. non-scored split, which tells an agent which markets have deep data downstream. It never names an alternative tool or an explicit 'do not use this for X' condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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