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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions sending a message and receiving responses, but fails to disclose potential side effects (e.g., intents like swap/bridge may execute transactions), whether wallet context is required for some intents, error behavior, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that can perform actions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and outcome, followed by a concise list of supported intents. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope. Length is appropriate for the tool's breadth.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain behavior comprehensively. It lists intents but does not describe what the structured responses look like, how intents are resolved, or whether certain intents require additional inputs like wallet. For a chat tool covering many intents, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent uncertain about invocation and expectations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing intents, which gives meaning to the 'message' parameter beyond the schema's generic 'Natural language query.' However, it does not elaborate on when the 'wallet' parameter is needed (e.g., for wallet-specific intents). The added value is marginal but not absent.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Send a plain English message and get back structured, actionable responses.' It also enumerates supported intents (price, stats, wallet, etc.), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that each handle a single specific function. This makes the purpose specific and 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 implies usage via the intent list, suggesting this is a general entry point for multiple queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of calling sibling tools directly, nor does it mention any situations where this tool should not be used. Clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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