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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: paid operation at $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failed calls not charged, up to 25 results, and the exact fields returned. The readOnly and openWorld hints are reinforced by these operational details.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers output fields and pricing. Slightly dense with the disclaimer and pricing clauses, but every sentence carries operational value and nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes return fields as a convenience, and it covers the pricing/payment model and result cap that the structured fields do not. An agent has everything needed to invoke and predict the cost of the call.

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 100%, so the schema already documents q, chain, and limit. The description only restates the limit cap (25) already present in the schema and adds no format or syntax detail for the query or chain filters. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (finds) and resource (token contract addresses by symbol or name), plus the scope (across chains) and data sources (DexScreener search and verified lists). This distinguishes it from siblings like token_metadata, evm_token, and solana_token, which operate on already-known tokens.

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 implies the use case (searching for a token when you only have a symbol or name), but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as token_metadata or the chain-specific token tools. No explicit exclusions or routing guidance is given.

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