get_token_contract_by_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the core function but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the symbol is not found (e.g., error or null), or any permission requirements. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 11 words with no superfluous content. It is efficient, though it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return value (e.g., a string address) and edge cases (e.g., symbol not found). It fails to do so, leaving the AI agent uncertain about the tool's response. The description is insufficient for a tool of this 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter token_symbol, which already provides an example ('XIAN'). The tool description reinforces the mapping from symbol to contract address but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: to find a contract address given a token symbol. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Find the contract address') and is easily distinguishable from siblings like get_token_data_by_contract (which requires a contract address) and get_token_balances (which gets balances).

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 usage context is implied by the parameter and sibling tools: use this when you have a symbol and need the contract address. However, no explicit guidance is given about when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., using get_token_data_by_contract when already have the address). The description is minimal, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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