Solana: findSolanaSwapToken

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering key behavioral aspects. The description adds contextual use-case info but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations state.

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 consists of two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and provides a specific usage prompt, achieving high efficiency.

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 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate but lacks information about the output format (e.g., what data is returned). This omission could leave an agent uncertain about the result structure.

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 one parameter fully described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it restates the purpose without providing format or constraints. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Find', the resource 'Solana token', and the method 'by name or symbol'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the trigger scenario: 'Use when splBuyIntent reports ambiguous token symbol.', which provides specific context for usage.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (when splBuyIntent reports ambiguous token symbol), providing clear context. It does not include explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool names, but the given context is sufficient for differentiating from siblings.

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