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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add resolution semantics — which it does: a symbol alone is not proof, the intended candidate must be confirmed, and unknown/merged states remain explicit. This tells the agent to expect ambiguous multi-candidate results, which annotations do not convey.

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 triggering condition and packed with actionable guidance in a compact space. The clipped final sentence ("Unknown/merged states stay explicit") is slightly terse but still parses.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by signaling that resolution may return candidates requiring confirmation, and the schema carries pagination via cursor. Auth/permission context is absent but the tool is a read-only lookup, so the gap is minor.

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, limit, and cursor. The description's format hints ($BTC, #BTC) largely overlap the schema text, adding little beyond it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — resolving a named coin, ticker, or contract to its exact identity. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_asset (fetch details for a known asset) because the description frames this as identity lookup from an ambiguous input.

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 when a user names a coin, ticker or known contract and research needs its exact identity" gives a clear triggering condition, and the retry guidance (split a combined name/ticker query if nothing is found) is practical. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when not to use it.

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