get_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 return data (price, market cap, etc.), which is useful behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid address), rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently lists return data. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 the tool's low complexity (one required parameter) and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the purpose, key input, and return data. However, it could improve by addressing potential errors or limitations, as no annotations cover behavioral aspects. It's adequate but not exhaustive for a read 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%, with the parameter 'address' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it's for token lookup. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 detailed information'), target resource ('a specific token on Omni.fun'), and key identifier ('by its contract address'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_tokens' (which likely searches rather than fetches a specific token) and 'get_trending_tokens' (which likely lists trending tokens rather than details for one).

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 context ('by its contract address') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'search_tokens' when the exact address is known, or mention prerequisites like token support. The guidance is functional but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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