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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden: it does disclose that values come straight from chain and that price/FDV are included, and it names the supported networks. It says nothing about failure modes (non-ERC-20 address, unverified contract), whether price data is stale or unavailable on some chains, or rate limiting.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the returned fields come first, the use case second. No filler and nothing an agent must scan past.

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?

An output schema exists, so field-level return documentation is rightly omitted, and the description remains sufficient for a 2-parameter read-only tool. The one gap is behavior on invalid or non-token addresses, which matters for a verification-oriented tool.

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% and there is no enum on `chain`, so the description's enumeration of Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism and Polygon is the only documentation of valid values, with the first implying the default. The `address` parameter is only referred to as "a token address" — no format or checksum expectation — which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Specific verb + resource: reads ERC-20 contract facts (name, symbol, decimals, supply, price, FDV) from chain, and enumerates supported chains. Clearly separable from siblings like erc20_balance, erc20_transfers, contract_info, or read_contract because it states it returns token metadata rather than balances, logs, or arbitrary contract reads.

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?

"Use to verify a token address before trading or integrating it" gives a concrete trigger and intent. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., token_risk_check for safety scoring, erc20_balance for holdings, contract_info for non-ERC-20 contracts), so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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