Look up token by symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only mentions the return type (candidate tokens with contract addresses) but omits behavioral traits such as behavior on no match, rate limits, authorization needs, or pagination. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded sentences: first states purpose, second states outcome. No extraneous content. Efficient and clear.

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 simplicity (2 string parameters, no nesting, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality. It would benefit from mentioning default behavior on no match (e.g., empty list), but overall it is adequate.

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%, and the description adds value by giving examples ('ethereum' or '1' for chain, 'USDC' for symbol) and a usage hint for chain. This exceeds the baseline of 3 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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'tokens by symbol or name on a chain', and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_tokens_by_address which search by address. It also specifies the return type (candidate tokens with contract addresses).

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 indicates when to use the tool (search by symbol or name on a chain) and even references get_chains_list for chain discovery. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives, though the sibling list is broad.

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