resolve_token

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

The description discloses that the tool uses a built-in registry with a DexScreener fallback, which is extra context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It implies that for non-major tokens, results may rely on the fallback. This adds meaningful behavioral insight, though it doesn't fully describe return format or edge cases.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, explaining the mechanism, and giving usage guidance. No redundant text; it is concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple two-parameter read-only resolver, the description is thorough. It explains what the tool does, how it works (registry with fallback), and when to use it. While there is no output schema, the description implies the return includes address and decimals. This is complete for its complexity.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters completely (100% coverage) with descriptive text and examples for symbol and chainId. The description adds examples and clarifies the output (contract address and decimals), but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Resolve a token symbol to its contract address and decimals on a specific chain.' It provides concrete examples (USDT, WBNB) and differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternatives to avoid. The verb 'resolve' and resource are specific and distinct.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'ALWAYS call this first when you need a token address' and directly instructs not to use similar tools like blockscout_lookup_token_by_symbol or get_token_info_by_symbol. This clearly establishes when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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