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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the outputs for each action but does not disclose any behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. It is likely read-only but this is not explicitly stated.

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 paragraph but packs all necessary information without fluff. It is concise but could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., bullet points) for improved readability by an AI agent.

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 lacking an output schema, the description fully covers the return values for each action, including specific details like holder perks and links. It leaves no gap in understanding what the tool will provide.

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 sole parameter (action) is fully defined in the schema with enum values and descriptions. The description adds meaningful context by detailing what each action returns (e.g., 'live burn stats' for burns), enhancing the schema's minimal description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves $ZAMBO token info, including specific actions (info, burns, price). It distinguishes itself from many sibling zambo_ tools by focusing on token data with a specific resource and verb.

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?

Description explicitly defines three actions (info, burns, price) and their outputs, providing clear context for when to use each. However, it does not compare to sibling tools or give explicit alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action definitions.

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