DevX Token Snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the tool is free, that reads are live on-chain (not cached), and exactly which fields are probed, which tells the agent about latency/freshness characteristics.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with the key qualifiers ('Free, read-only') first and no filler. It is dense and slightly run-on with the field enumeration, but every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return payload — and it does, enumerating every returned field. Combined with the chain coverage and the live-read note, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including the enum for chain and its 'default base'. The description lists the chain names but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 uses a clear verb ('read') and enumerates the exact resource fields returned (name, symbol, decimals, total supply, proxy/owner presence, DEX pool count) plus the supported chains, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It does not reference or differentiate from the sibling token_snapshot_info, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Free, read-only' and 'Live on-chain reads' signal cost and freshness context, which helps an agent decide to call it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling token_snapshot_info as an alternative, leaving selection to inference.

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

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

With readOnlyHint=true already present, the description adds valuable context: the x402 payment protocol, the 0.003 USDC cost on Base, and the explicit clarification that the tool does not pay. It does not fully describe the return format, but the key behavioral constraint is disclosed.

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 compact statement with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. Parenthetical contents are dense but useful.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema info tool, the description covers the snapshot contents, price, protocol, network, and non-payment behavior. It could more explicitly state that the tool returns purchase instructions, but it is otherwise 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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently simple and the schema needs no compensation. Baseline 4 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 explains how to buy a full token snapshot via x402 for a specific price on Base, and lists the snapshot contents. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling token_basics tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need instructions for purchasing the full snapshot. However, it never states when not to use it or explicitly compares it to token_basics, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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