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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false annotations already cover the safety profile, yet the description adds useful context: it is free, it does not trade, and it discloses which token sets each network yields (Robinhood stock tokens vs. Base stables).

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 sentences that front-load purpose, then network contents, then usage. The ticker enumeration (TSLA, NVDA, AAPL…) is slightly verbose, though it does convey the scope of stock tokens.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, per-network return contents, the returned fields, and how to use the result. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 an enum and a stated default, so the baseline is 3. The description earns more by explaining what each network value actually returns (ETH, WETH, USDG, stock tokens; ETH, WETH, USDC), which helps the agent choose correctly.

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 — listing the tokens a Wafermap wallet can swap through KyberSwap on one network — and names the returned fields, so it is unmistakable next to wafermap_call or wafermap_discover.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: resolve a ticker to its contract address before quoting or executing a swap. It stops short of naming sibling tools or stating when this is the wrong choice, so it falls just short of a 5.

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