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

Annotations only say read-only and open-world; the description adds provenance (GeckoTerminal public DEX index, Jupiter's token index for Solana, direct on-chain reads on Robinhood Chain), ranking semantics (ordered by liquidity), the returned field set, and the concrete 10x-liquidity rule that determines a single winner. These are behavioral traits an agent could not infer from the 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?

The core purpose is front-loaded, and the closing routing sentence is well-structured, but the first sentence is a ~120-word run-on stacking colons and semicolons, listing chains, output fields, and per-chain read behavior in one breath. The information is useful but the structure makes it hard to parse on a first pass.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: contract address, liquidity ranking, 24-hour volume, pools, price, oldest pool, explorer link, plus Solana-specific mint/freeze authority. Nothing an agent needs to call this and interpret the result 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%, and the schema already states the chain default ('Default robinhood') and query examples, so the description's repetition of accepted ticker/name forms and the chain list adds little new meaning. Baseline 3 applies — the schema carries the parameter burden here.

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 opening clause names a specific verb and resource — 'The contract address of a token named by ticker or name' — with concrete examples (CLAUS, STANDARD, 'pepe'). It also draws explicit boundaries against siblings: token_quote/token_report consume its output, and 'Not for stocks: stock tokens are stocks_list and stock_quote' rules out the most likely confusion.

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?

'Use this first whenever a question names a token without an address, then pass the address to token_quote, token_report, token_holders, bundle_check, dev_check or token_risk' gives precise sequencing and names the downstream alternatives. It also prescribes agent behavior on ambiguity — when `pick` is set, and when there is no pick, 'show the candidates and ask' — which is when-to-use guidance at the disambiguation level.

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