get_bonding_curve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and specifies the return data structure, but doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid symbols. The description adds value by explaining the graduation threshold ($69K market cap) and Uniswap V3 transition, which aren't obvious from the tool name alone.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists all return values. Every element earns its place: the action, the resource, and the comprehensive list of returned data points including the specific graduation threshold.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of what the tool returns. It specifies five distinct data points including the graduation criteria. The main gap is lack of error handling information, but otherwise this is quite complete for its complexity level.

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% with the single parameter 'symbol' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to since the schema fully covers the single parameter. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Get the bonding curve state') and resource ('for a token'), with explicit details about what information is returned (price, tokens sold, total raised, progress, graduation status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_token' or 'search_tokens' by focusing specifically on bonding curve metrics rather than general token information.

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 usage when bonding curve information is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_token' (which might provide different token data) or 'search_tokens' (which might help find tokens first). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite information is provided.

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