pyth_resolve_feed

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 conveys that this is a read-only resolution returning canonical metadata, which is useful, but it says nothing about not-found behavior, case sensitivity, rate limits, or whether the 64-char id is case-sensitive hex — meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the accepted input forms, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the input can be and what kind of result comes back (canonical feed metadata). The remaining gap is edge-case behavior on invalid or unknown feeds, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 `feed` parameter has no description, so the description must compensate — and it does, spelling out that the value can be a symbol like "BTC/USD" or a 64-character hexadecimal id. Format expectations for the only parameter are covered; min/max length constraints are left to the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ("Resolve") and a specific resource ("canonical Pyth feed metadata"), and even enumerates the two accepted input forms. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pyth_get_price or pyth_list_feeds, though it never names an alternative to contrast against.

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 use case is implied — you resolve a symbol or id when you need canonical feed metadata, presumably as a step before calling pyth_get_price or pyth_get_prices. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over pyth_list_feeds, nor any prerequisite or failure guidance.

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