search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the search scope and purpose, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or pagination behavior for a search tool.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, while the second provides usage guidance. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single-parameter input schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or response format that would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'query' parameter with its description and type. The description adds marginal value by mentioning what can be searched ('name, symbol, or address') and providing examples, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 searches across all networks for tokens, pools, and DEXes by name, symbol, or address. It specifies the verb ('search'), resources ('tokens, pools, and DEXes'), and scope ('across ALL networks'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like getNetworkDexes or getNetworkPools that appear to be network-specific.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Good starting point when you don't know the specific network.' This gives practical guidance, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it (e.g., when you already know the network).

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