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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it runs crypto and on-chain routes in parallel, returns every real match at once, and clarifies that bare names in this context should be interpreted as crypto entities. However, it does not detail return format or potential errors, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 dense but purposeful, with each sentence contributing to usage or interpretation. It is front-loaded with the 'FIRST STOP' positioning and examples. A minor typo ('fingers' users) slightly detracts, but the structure is effective.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers question types, behavior, interpretation, and edge-case handling (launch date). It doesn't define the exact return structure, but the description's guidance on leading with traction match implies the return includes confidence/metadata.

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 already fully covers the query parameter with examples (name, ticker, address). The description reinforces this by mentioning bare proper nouns and address handling, but adds no new syntax or format details, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 explicitly states it is the FIRST STOP for name/entity questions, lists specific example queries (what is X, when did X launch, is X a rug), and differentiates from siblings by emphasizing parallel multi-route resolution returning every match. This clearly distinguishes it from individual lookup tools like dex_token or nft_info.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'FIRST STOP' for entity questions, 'Call this BEFORE concluding from web search alone', and gives direction on how to use results (lead with traction match, add non-crypto namesakes from web_search as secondary). Also gives specific handling for launch date queries.

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