ids_for_names

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without mentioning return format, error behavior, required chain/contract parameters, or whether it is a read-only lookup. This leaves agents guessing about side effects or prerequisites.

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 a single sentence with clear subject-verb-object structure, front-loaded with the core verb and resource. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly concise.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and 14 siblings, this description is severely under-specified. It lacks return value information, parameter context, and sibling differentiation, making it inadequate for reliable tool selection.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'given names', which aligns with the required `names` parameter, but it provides no explanation for `chain`, `rpcUrl`, or `contractAddress`, leaving their roles unclear.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('on-chain metric ids'), and it clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_metrics or quote_metrics by specifying that it resolves IDs from given names. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_metrics_map or quote_by_ids. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it should be selected.

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