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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses paid access (0.005 USDC via x402, ARCGATE-KEY header alternative), a concrete error taxonomy (404 token_not_found, 429 lookup_rate_limited with retryAfterSec, 503 rpc_unavailable), and the lookalike-impostor caveat. It stops short of covering caching, result stability, or whether params._meta payment is validated before or after the lookup.

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?

Bold-labeled sections (Cost, Inputs, Returns, Errors, Next) make it skimmable and the purpose is front-loaded. The closing paragraph partly re-states the cost bullet ('Costs 5000 base units (0.005 USDC) per call'), which is mild duplication, though it does add the header-based payment detail and the docs link.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and 50% schema coverage, the description supplies the return-field semantics (verification status, safety verdicts, pools, `launch`, `exitRisk` in basis points and separate from the safety sell-check, plus its `limitations`), the cost/payment path, errors, and the follow-on call. The set is coherent and near-complete; only edge behaviors like retry/pagination are absent, and the 25-result cap leaves little ambiguity there.

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 coverage is only 50% (`query` and `limit` are undocumented in the schema), so the description must compensate, and it does: it restates `query` as a flexible resolver over ticker/name/prefix/0x address and pins `limit` to 1-25 with default 10. It also clarifies that filters narrow `results` only while ranks/flags are computed over the unfiltered match set, adding real semantics about how the filters interact with output.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Resolves a ticker, name, prefix or `0x` address to candidate ERC-20 tokens on Arc'), and the 'Next' section separates it from the pricing sibling by naming `tradeQuote` as the follow-on step. An agent can tell this is the discovery/lookup tool rather than the quote or swap tool without opening any schema.

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 'Next' section gives clear routing ('tradeQuote': price a swap with the chosen result's `address` as `sell` or `buy') and the Returns section instructs 'Check verification and safety before you trade,' establishing when to use it. It does not explicitly state when *not* to call it, but the sibling hand-off makes the intended position in the workflow unambiguous.

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