Search coins

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), and the description adds real context beyond that: results are ranked by liquidity, and it discloses the returned fields (market cap, volume, age) plus the upstream data source. It doesn't mention result limits or what happens on no-match, but the added value is solid.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; identity and input forms come first, return semantics second. Nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills in the return shape (liquid-ranked matches with market cap, volume, age). What's missing is minor: result count limits and behavior when nothing matches.

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 0% and the single 'query' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden — it does so by specifying that the query may be a name, ticker, or address. That is concrete and directly useful, though no format examples (e.g. mint address format) are given.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search Solana coins') and the accepted identifier forms, plus the backing source (DexScreener). It is distinguishable from detail-oriented siblings like pump_coin, though it never names that distinction explicitly.

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 word 'Search' plus the name/ticker/address hint implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over pump_coin or pump_new_launches. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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