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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or is subject to rate limits. The description only states what data is returned, not the behavior of the call.

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 sentence that effectively conveys the tool's purpose and key data dimensions without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description lists the categories of information returned (supply, holders, etc.), which is sufficient for an agent to judge whether this tool fits a request. It lacks an output schema, but the enumerated data points provide a good sense of the response. Minor gaps like temporal scope or precision are not critical for tool selection.

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 'symbol' is required and is described with an example ('e.g. USDT'). The tool description reinforces that the symbol identifies the token for which details are returned. While format specifics (case, network) are not detailed, the meaning is unambiguous for the common use case.

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 that the tool provides AMT-20 token details and enumerates the specific data categories (supply, holders, stable collateral backing, pool depth, governance flags). It implies a 'get' operation without an explicit verb, but the scope is clear and distinct from sibling tools like aman_market or aman_price.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the listed data categories implicitly indicate that it should be used when these specific token metrics are needed. Lacks direct guidance on selection criteria compared to sibling tools.

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