resolve_token_holder_price_reference

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses the multi-step, stateful behavior (statuses: listed_use_same_address, needs_user_input, resolved) and provides examples. It could be more explicit about error conditions or what happens if invalid parameters are passed, but overall it is quite transparent.

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 concise (~120 words) and well-organized with enumerated steps and examples. Every sentence adds distinct value, no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the purpose, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description explains the step-by-step usage and parameter conditions well. However, it does not describe the response format or output structure (e.g., exact fields returned for each status). Given the absence of an output schema, this gap makes the tool harder to integrate without external documentation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the conditional roles of parameters: token_kind and decimals are only needed when status is 'needs_user_input'. Concrete JSON examples further clarify usage beyond the schema definitions.

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 tool resolves 'context.volume_currency_expression for token-holder triggers' and outlines a specific three-step process. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_price_references' by focusing on a single token's resolution path.

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 step-by-step instructions on when to pass which parameters (e.g., first call with token_address, second with token_kind/decimals if needed). It also warns about create_trigger rejecting unlisted tokens when using token_address directly. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for different scenarios.

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