market_search_token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the return fields and data source (CoinGecko). It does not mention result limits, ordering, or no-match behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the action verb and every phrase adds information about scope or return fields.

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 1-parameter search tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is searched and what is returned. However, it is slightly ambiguous whether returns include exchanges/NFTs or just coins, and it omits result limits or pagination. Since there is no output schema, the description carries the return-format burden, which it handles adequately.

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 the query parameter fully described as 'token name, symbol, or keyword'. The description merely restates keyword searching without adding format examples, syntax details, or additional semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 (Search), the resource scope (cryptocurrencies, exchanges, and NFTs on CoinGecko), and the return value (CoinGecko ID, symbol, name, market cap rank). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like market_get_token_price or market_get_top_tokens.

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 implies the use case—keyword-based discovery of CoinGecko assets—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over similar lookup/resolution tools such as get_token_info_by_ticker, resolve_token, or dexscreener_search_pairs. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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