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

Beyond the read-only/openWorld annotations, the description discloses the verification taxonomy (verified/likely-real/unverified/likely-impostor), the impostor-copycat risk it mitigates, the per-match returned fields (liquidity, 24h volume, price, age), and the billing model ($0.003 USDC via x402 or prepaid credits, free trial). This is rich context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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-loaded with the core action and chain list, then the safety labelling, then the accepted input and pricing. Every sentence carries information, though the pricing sentence is somewhat dense and the chain enumeration is lengthy.

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 so return values need not be described, and the description still covers the key result semantics (safety labels, metrics) plus cost and payment mechanics. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 already documents query, chain and limit with examples and bounds. The description adds only that a contract address is also accepted, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('Find the right contract for a token symbol or name') plus the exact multi-chain scope, and the address-accepting behavior. An agent can distinguish this from token-price or token-safety siblings, which return data about an already-identified token rather than resolving symbol to contract.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose — resolve a symbol/name/address to the correct contract — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against the many sibling token tools. No prerequisites or routing conditions are stated.

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