Resolve token symbol

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description explains that curated majors return one verified match, while other symbols return live DEX matches ranked by liquidity, which informs the agent about result variability and how to handle imitations. This adds behavioral context not captured in 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and examples, and each sentence provides distinct value. No redundancy.

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 tool is simple with two well-documented parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety and idempotence. The description explains the nuanced return behavior (verified vs. ranked matches) and its place in the swap workflow, making it complete.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, including the chain enum and symbol examples. The description reinforces the symbol examples but does not add meaningful new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states a specific action (resolve a token ticker symbol to contract addresses) with concrete examples (PEPE, WIF, USDC) and explicitly positions the tool in the workflow ('Use before get_quote when you only know the symbol'), which distinguishes it from the sibling 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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use before get_quote when you only know the symbol.' It also details the two modes (curated majors vs. live DEX matches), helping the agent decide when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as when the address is already known.

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