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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: a per-call cost of $0.001 USDC via x402, the chain scope, and the output content (price, liquidity, FDV, 24h volume). No contradiction with annotations.

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: the first front-loads the core function and return fields, the second states the cost. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of the title or schema details.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and the critical cost detail, while annotations handle the safety profile. It is slightly incomplete regarding limit semantics and result ordering, but overall an agent can call it correctly.

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 only 50%: query has a description and example, but limit has none. The description merely paraphrases the query parameter ('by name or symbol') and does not explain the limit parameter or how it interacts with the 'highest-liquidity' matching. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 and resource: 'Search crypto tokens by name or symbol' and specifies the return set ('highest-liquidity matched pairs with price, liquidity, FDV and 24h volume across chains'). It is clear and distinguishes itself from generic token tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like market_jup_token_search, so it misses the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as market_jup_token_search or trending_tokens. It notes the paid cost but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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