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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states the data is read live from the chain, lists what is returned, and explicitly warns that price is not synthesized from the home-chain value and is null when no pool exists. This is unusually honest about behavioral limits.

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?

Three focused sentences: the first defines the scope, the second lists the return fields, and the third clarifies an important edge case about null pricing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates all key returned attributes and explains the null-price behavior. For a single-optional-filter read tool, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 100%, and the schema already documents symbol as an optional filter with an example. The description adds context about what symbols look like (WSOL.X, USDC.X) but does not meaningfully expand on the parameter's semantics beyond the schema's existing description.

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 identifies a read-only chain query for assets bridged onto X1, names concrete examples (WSOL.X, USDC.X), and enumerates the exact return fields. This makes the tool's object unambiguous and distinguishable from generic token or market tools among the siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to determine whether a bridged asset is genuinely live on X1 and whether any trading pool exists. It also explicitly clarifies that an asset can be live yet have no market, but it does not name sibling alternatives or state 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.