x402_token_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the $0.05 cost and the x402 payment protocol, which is a significant behavioral trait, and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't mention error scenarios, authentication, or response format.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Get token data') and packs in the output fields and cost without any redundant wording.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description adequately covers the output scope and cost. It could be slightly more complete by noting the return structure or behavior on invalid addresses, but given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly sufficient.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter 'address' as 'Token contract address (0x...)', and the description adds no further detail about formatting or defaults. This meets the baseline given 100% schema coverage.

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 retrieves token data with a specific list of metrics (price, market cap, 24h volume, liquidity, FDV). This makes it distinct from sibling tools like wallet_score or protocol_tvl.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that usage can be inferred when token-specific data is needed. It lacks any mention of exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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