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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'via an on-chain read,' confirming the operation is a non-mutating lookup. It also sets expectations for arbitrary/unlisted addresses, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers purpose, output, behavioral mode, and usage context without waste. The em-dash separates the core action from the targeting guidance cleanly.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the description provides all necessary context for correct invocation. It clearly states what this tool does, when to use it, and how it differs from ravn_tokens.

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%, so the schema fully documents address, chainId, and apiKey. The description reinforces that 'address' is a token contract/mint and clarifies the output metadata, but it does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve'), a specific resource ('arbitrary token address'), and the exact metadata returned (symbol, name, decimals). It also distinguishes itself from ravn_tokens by clarifying it handles tokens not necessarily on that list.

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?

It explicitly scopes the tool to a 'paste-any-address flow' and states when it applies: 'when the token isn't necessarily on ravn_tokens's list.' This gives the agent a clear decision rule versus the sibling ravn_tokens.

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