verify_stock_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the probing method and the rationale, which is a notable behavioral trait. It implies read-only behavior (verification without side effects) and explains why the method is reliable.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose directly. The second provides essential context and the verification mechanism. No extraneous text.

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?

The description explains the 'why' and 'how' but lacks explicit information about the output type (likely boolean) and potential errors. For a verification tool without an output schema, users might need to infer the return format.

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?

The input schema already has a clear description for the 'token' parameter ('Contract address, or a ticker to search for') with 100% coverage. The description adds no further semantic value about the parameter's usage or interpretation.

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: to determine if a contract is a genuine Robinhood Stock Token or a copy. The verb 'determine whether' and the specific resource 'Robinhood Stock Token' make the action distinct. It also explains the underlying method (probing uiMultiplier()), which differentiates it from sibling tools like stock_token_info.

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 provides context about why this tool is needed (multiple contracts per ticker, no official registry) and the mechanism, which implicitly guides when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like stock_token_info or stock_token_registry.

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