token_resolve

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: it defines verdict semantics (BLOCKED means no quote or fill ever; REVIEW_REQUIRED requires explicit user approval), describes the checks performed, and constrains agent behavior ('NEVER says looks safe'). This is disclosure well beyond a restatement of the name.

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-loads the action and the pre-trade ordering, then lists checks and verdicts compactly. The check enumeration is long but each item maps to a real output field, so little is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain what comes back, and it does — listing the checked dimensions and the three verdict values. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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%, so chain and contract_address are already documented with formats and defaults. The description only adds the 'CA' shorthand and reinforces that an address is pasted in, so 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 ('inspect a token', 'get red flags + facts') and enumerates exactly what is checked. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like swap_quote and swap_execute, which it explicitly references.

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 explicit when-to-use ('call this first, every time, before swap_quote') and states the sequencing relative to a named alternative. It also tells the agent how to act on each verdict, which is unusually complete routing guidance.

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