Comfy token detail

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by decoding two distinct null states ('null market figures mean the token has never traded' vs 'data:null means the index does not know the address') and explaining the meaning of the `listed` flag. Those edge-case semantics are the main failure mode for an agent reading a sparse address lookup, and they are spelled out precisely.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and access pattern, then the field inventory, then the null-state caveats last. No filler; the field list is dense but justified because there is no output schema to carry it.

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 has to convey what comes back and what degenerate responses look like — it does both via the field enumeration and the two null explanations. An agent needs nothing further to call this correctly.

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 `token` parameter is already documented in the schema as a 40-hex-char 0x address. The description only reinforces 'by address' and adds no format, checksum, or casing guidance, so this sits at the baseline where the schema does the work.

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?

Opens with a specific resource and access pattern ('One token by address') and then enumerates exactly which fields come back (identity, creator, pool, price, volumes, FDV, market cap, liquidity, counts). This clearly separates it from list-style siblings like comfy_tokens or comfy_search_tokens, though it never names them 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 singular 'one token by address' implies this is the detail lookup and siblings are the list/search paths, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'for discovery use comfy_search_tokens instead' statement. An agent must infer the routing from the phrasing rather than being told.

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