cryptoguard_search

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context by specifying the search scope ('CoinGecko coin ID') and the types of inputs accepted ('name, symbol, or contract address'), which enhances understanding beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and an example. Every sentence serves a clear function without redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), rich annotations, and clear sibling relationships, the description is nearly complete. It effectively explains the tool's role in the workflow and input semantics. A minor gap is the lack of detail on output format (e.g., what the search returns), but annotations and context mitigate this.

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%, with the parameter 'query' well-documented in the schema as 'Token name, symbol, or contract address to search.' The description reinforces this by listing the same input types but doesn't add significant new semantic details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('Search for a token's CoinGecko coin ID') and the resources involved ('by name, symbol, or contract address'). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'scan_token' and 'validate_trade' as tools that require the coin ID found through this search, establishing a clear workflow relationship.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this first if you're unsure of the correct coin_id for scan_token or validate_trade') and includes a practical example ('search 'pepe''). It clearly positions this as a preparatory step for other tools, offering strong contextual direction.

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