Resolve symbol -> coinId

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds crucial behavioral context: 'Paper trading only — virtual funds (50,000 mUSD). Not financial advice.' This fully discloses the environment and constraints, which annotations alone do not provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise at three sentences, with the core action and purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage instruction, and environment disclosure. No wasted words, well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the complexity (nested object parameter, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns (coinId plus alternatives with tags), and the paper-trading context. The output schema handles return value details, so completeness is high.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('q' and 'agentTrace'). The tool description adds no further parameter-level detail, but the schema already provides adequate information. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 for high coverage, and no additional value is needed.

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?

Uses specific verb 'resolve' and clearly states the transformation from human-identifiable symbol/slug/name to coinId (UCID). Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's a prerequisite for wallet/quote/order tools and warning against guessing UCIDs. The purpose is unambiguous and unique among siblings.

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 instructs to 'Use this FIRST' to obtain coinId needed by other tools, and warns not to guess UCIDs. This provides strong usage context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or list alternatives (which is acceptable as there is no sibling doing the same task). A slight improvement could be an explicit exclusion statement.

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