Resolve a token symbol or name to its address and decimals — call this FIRST when the user names a token; every other tool takes addresses. volume30dUsd disambiguates same-symbol tokens: the real one has volume.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max rows (default 20, cap 100) | |
| search | No | symbol or name fragment (e.g. USDG), or an exact 0x address; empty returns the top tokens by 30-day volume |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction exists. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns address and decimals, supports address lookup as well as symbol/name fragments, and clarifies how to disambiguate results using volume30dUsd. It does not describe the full response structure, but the annotations cover the safety profile.
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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the usage directive follows immediately, and the disambiguation tip earns its place by addressing a real practical issue.
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 low-complexity 2-parameter tool with read-only annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the core function, the call-first workflow, and the disambiguation cue. There is no output schema, so a bit more return-shape detail could help, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.
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 both parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds tool-level context around the lookup concept and the volume30dUsd output field, but it does not significantly expand on the input parameters themselves. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
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 states a specific verb ('Resolve a token symbol or name to its address and decimals') and distinguishes the tool from all siblings by noting that every other tool takes addresses. It also mentions the disambiguating volume30dUsd field, making the tool's role unambiguous.
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'call this FIRST when the user names a token; every other tool takes addresses.' It also explains how to handle same-symbol ambiguity by checking volume30dUsd, which is concrete and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource (orders, quotes, routes, tokens, docs, examples), but market_stats, get_market_overview, and token_volume overlap on volume/engine-wide stats, and get_quote/get_route are closely related. Descriptions mitigate most misselection.
Most accessors use get_/list_/search_ verbs, but five tools (error_catalog, market_stats, order_preflight, recent_swaps, token_volume) use bare noun phrases instead of a consistent verb-first pattern. All names are snake_case and readable, so the mixed verbs are a moderate inconsistency.
At 15 tools the server is at the top of the ideal range and each area (market data, orders, quotes/routing, docs, examples) is represented. A few overlapping stats/volume tools make it feel slightly heavier than necessary, but the count is not a problem.
The read-only surface is fairly complete: quotes, routes, orderbook, order status/list, market stats, token search, docs, examples, and error catalog. However, there are no tools to create/submit or cancel orders, and no wallet/balance/allowance tools, so agents cannot complete an actual trade from quote to execution. This is a notable gap if the server is meant to support trading, not just research/development.