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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by specifying it calls only GET /v4/tokens/{mintAddress} and returns that response verbatim, signalling a single upstream call with no fan-out or extra processing.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and endpoint, with the field enumeration last. Minor waste in repeating the title verbatim ('Token Details.') at the start, but otherwise every sentence 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?

With one fully described parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema handling return values, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only shortfall is the lack of explicit sibling routing, which is modest for such a simple lookup 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 100% and the single mintAddress parameter is already documented as a Solana public key and path parameter. The description's endpoint mention corroborates that mapping but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb+resource (fetch token details for a mint address) and enumerates the returned fields: price, volume, market cap, holder count, supply, social links. This distinguishes it adequately from narrower siblings like get-token-liquidity or get-token-candles, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 implies a read-only lookup against a single endpoint and that the returned payload is the response body, which suggests when to reach for it. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against the many sibling token endpoints (liquidity, candles, top-holders), leaving the agent to infer that this is the aggregate overview tool.

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