analyze_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data categories and input flexibility (coin type or symbol), but does not explicitly state that the call is read-only, nor does it mention rate limits, permissions, or error behavior. The 'get' and 'analysis' wording implies a safe read, but it is not explicit.

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 concise sentence plus an example, front-loaded with the recommendation and specific output list. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing exactly what is returned (metadata, price, change, supply, holders) and the accepted input formats. It does not explain error handling or network-specific behavior, but those are partially covered in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for an analysis 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description's note about accepting coin type or symbol essentially restates the query parameter's own description. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides; hence, the baseline of 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 explicitly states 'Get a comprehensive analysis of a Sui token' and enumerates specific data points (metadata, current price, 24h change, total supply, top 5 holders), clearly distinguishing it from price-only tools like get_token_prices or balance tools.

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?

Opens with '(Recommended for token research)' signaling the intended use case, and the description implies a comprehensive analysis without naming alternatives. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools such as get_token_prices or identify_address, so it lacks explicit when-not instructions.

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