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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ranking logic (pool liquidity, then 24h volume, then holders), the honeypot risk shape, and the free cost. It doesn't detail output format or failure behavior, but the disclosed ranking and risk context go well beyond a minimal description.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core action, then provides concrete stats and ranking criteria. It's slightly long with the XNM example and the 'Free' note, but every sentence adds context about behavior or usage, so the length is justified.

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 input semantics, the ranking behavior, the risk context, and the usage caveat. It doesn't specify the exact output shape, but the description's explanation of what the tool determines is sufficient for an agent to 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 single parameter 'symbol' is already described with an example. The description adds meaning by explaining that the symbol is a ticker that may map to multiple tokens, and that the tool will rank candidates — enriching the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's simple 'Ticker to check'.

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 states a specific verb and resource: given a ticker, find every token using that symbol and identify the most likely real one. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like token_lookup and whale_ticker by emphasizing ticker ambiguity and ranking by liquidity/volume/holders.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool: when you have a ticker and need to resolve the real token, and warns to never resolve by ticker alone. It also names the alternative approach (resolve by mint address) and explains why this tool exists, giving clear context for selection.

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