Token symbol search (free)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: ranked candidates with real/liquid first and symbol-collision flags, though it omits result limits or exact-match behavior.

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 purpose and accepted input forms are front-loaded, and the scam warning earns its place by explaining why screening matters. It is dense but contains no clear filler or repetition.

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 free search tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough context: what it searches, why to use it, and what the result ranking/collision flags mean. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so no critical decision information is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already documents that q accepts a ticker, name fragment, or 0x address. The description repeats those accepted forms but adds no further syntax or constraint meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: free token search by ticker, name fragment, or address on Robinhood Chain. It also makes the scope concrete by saying it resolves a ticker to contract address(es) and distinguishes this from paid verdict/report tools.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to screen a $symbol here before paying for a verdict or report on the wrong contract, providing a clear use condition and contrast with paid alternatives. It does not enumerate other sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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