lookup_event_feed

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that returns a single-section report with feed_name, token, and indicator suffix; if not found, a diagnostic pointer. Also explains input format (hex, optional '0x', any case). No side effects mentioned, but implied read-only.

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?

Concise yet informative. Includes purpose, motivation, parameter description, and return value. Each sentence adds value, though the motivation sentence could be slightly tighter.

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 one parameter and output schema existence, description covers input format and output structure. It mentions the diagnostic pointer for missing hashes. Complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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%, but description thoroughly explains feed_id_hex: bytes32 hash, with or without '0x' prefix, any case. It adds meaning beyond schema by specifying it's a hash and the accepted formats.

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?

Clearly states it reverse-looks up a bytes32 feedId to a human-readable feed name. The verb 'lookup' and resource 'event feed' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_feed_value or get_token_feeds.

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?

Provides explicit context: when subscribers receive bytes32 feedId in events and need canonical name. Explains why to use it instead of maintaining a local table or querying the registry contract. No explicit when-not, but the guidance is clear.

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