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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ranking criteria (pool liquidity, 24h volume, holders), warns about honeypot patterns (liquidity with zero holders/volume), and notes it's free. It doesn't detail the exact return format, but implies a recommendation among all matches. This is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the ranking criteria are clearly stated. Some statistics (85 tickers, 7,965 tokens) are illustrative but slightly verbose; still, every sentence contributes to the tool's understanding. Overall efficient and well-structured.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, ranking logic, honeypot warning, and usage caution. It doesn't specify exact output format, but the intent is clear. Minor omission of return structure or limits, but not critical for effective use.

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% with a clear description for 'symbol' (Ticker to check, e.g. 'XNM'). The description adds crucial context that the parameter is a ticker symbol, not a mint address, and reinforces this with the guidance to resolve by mint instead. This meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 action: given a ticker, find all tokens with that symbol and identify the most likely real one. It distinguishes itself from siblings like token_lookup by focusing on duplicate detection and ranking, and includes a concrete example (XNM) to clarify the 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?

It provides explicit guidance to resolve tokens by mint address rather than ticker, implying when not to use this tool. It also explains that the tool exists to demonstrate why ticker-based resolution is unreliable. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state precise conditions for use beyond the general purpose.

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