Search tokens

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by explaining that the search spans two distinct indexes, which implies broader coverage. It also clarifies the acceptable input types. There is no mention of rate limits or pagination behavior, but given the annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation, this additional context is meaningful and not contradictory.

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 a single, succinct sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Find tokens...'), then provides additional scope information. Every phrase is useful: the target chain, search methods, and the two sources. No unnecessary words 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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what is searched and how, and the limit parameter covers pagination. The only missing piece is what the response contains (e.g., token objects), but that is not critical for a search tool and may be inferred from the sibling tool names. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces the semantics of 'query' by explicitly stating that searches are by ticker, name, or contract address, and adds the detail of searching two registries together. This goes beyond the schema by clarifying the combined scope of the search, earning a score above the baseline.

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's function: 'Find tokens on Robinhood Chain by ticker, name, or contract address.' It identifies the resource (tokens), the action (find), and the specific search criteria, while also mentioning the combined search over two registries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_stock_tokens or get_coin, which suggest listing or fetching specific entities.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: whenever a user needs to locate a token by ticker, name, or contract address. It implies a comprehensive search across both Stock Token registry and Blockscout, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context itself is sufficiently clear.

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