Token intelligence: name, symbol, supply, holder count, source-verification, and safety signals for a contract. Send { address }. Agents vet a token before touching it. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/crypto/token]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 0x ERC-20 token contract address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is paid ('x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/crypto/token') and the HTTP method. It implies read-only operation. This adds value beyond the schema, though it does not mention rate limits or error conditions. A score of 4 reflects good transparency for a paid tool without 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 plus a concise payment note. It is front-loaded with the key outputs (name, symbol, etc.) and efficient. Every sentence earns its place; no waste.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly lists the returned data (name, symbol, supply, holder count, source-verification, safety signals). For a single-parameter tool, this is complete enough for an agent to understand what it gets. No gaps.
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% with the address parameter described as '0x ERC-20 token contract address.' The description simply echoes 'Send { address }' without adding new semantics. Baseline is 3 since the schema already documents the parameter well.
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 specifies the tool provides token intelligence: name, symbol, supply, holder count, source-verification, and safety signals. It states the use case 'vet a token before touching it,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like crypto_contract or safety tools. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.
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 states the primary use case ('vet a token before touching it') and how to use it ('Send { address }'). However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context is clear. Scoring 4 for clear context but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.