get_token_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'abfragen' (queries/retrieves), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a real-time query. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second lists returned data, and the 'Args' section explains the parameter. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly rather than as a separate labeled section.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details (e.g., performance, errors) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. Without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values beyond listing fields, leaving some ambiguity about data format.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining that the 'token' parameter can be either a token symbol (e.g., 'SOL', 'JUP') or a mint address, which clarifies usage beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. Since there's only one parameter, this effectively covers it, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples beyond the two given.

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's purpose: 'Metadaten eines Solana-Tokens abfragen' (retrieve metadata of a Solana token). It specifies the exact data returned (Name, Symbol, Supply, Decimals, Authorities), making the verb+resource combination specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_token_price' or 'check_token_safety', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_token_price' (for price data) and 'check_token_safety' (for safety checks), the description lacks explicit instructions on when this metadata-focused tool is appropriate, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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