Solana: findSolanaSwapToken

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., response format, error handling), but does not contradict annotations. A score of 3 reflects adequate coverage given the 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?

The description is extremely concise—two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose; the second provides usage context. Every word is informative, earning top marks.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers essential purpose and a key usage scenario. It could note what happens if no token is found or whether it returns multiple matches, but it is largely complete for its role.

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%, and the schema description already explains the sole parameter ('Token name or symbol to search'). The main description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, 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?

The description explicitly states it finds a Solana token by name or symbol, and provides a specific use case (ambiguity resolution in splBuyIntent), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like searchCryptoByName.

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 directly specifies when to use the tool ('Use when splBuyIntent reports ambiguous token symbol'), offering clear context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for the targeted scenario.

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