Name, code, decimals and supply of one Keeta token. Free.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"token": "<token>"
},
"name": "get_token"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | Token address starting keeta_ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declare the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. 'Free' is genuinely useful in a toolset full of quote_* paid endpoints, but there is no disclosure of failure behavior for a malformed or non-existent token address.
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 short fragments with zero waste; the returned fields are front-loaded before the cost note. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the four returned fields. For a one-parameter read-only lookup that is nearly sufficient; only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.
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 the single parameter already documents the required 'keeta_' address format. The description adds no further meaning about the token parameter, so the 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 names a specific resource (one Keeta token) and enumerates exactly what is returned: name, code, decimals and supply. It clearly differs from get_supply (aggregate supply) and search_tokens (discovery), though it never names those siblings 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 phrase 'one Keeta token' implies a single-address lookup and 'Free' signals no payment is required, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_tokens or quote_token_check, and no mention of what happens if the address is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.