get_o1_token_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait — only 'verified' o1 tokens are returned, and the address must be a Base address — but says nothing about failure modes (unverified or unknown address), read-only safety, or the shape of what is returned.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and scoping constraint front-loaded. Lean, though it borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient: it identifies the resource and the chain. It leaves open what 'details' include and how unverified or unknown tokens are handled.

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 0% for the single token_address parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds that the address is a Base-chain token address, which narrows the expected input, but gives no format, checksum, or validation detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('verified o1 token') scoped by a lookup key ('by Base address'). It is distinguishable from the sibling search_o1_tokens by implying a single-token lookup, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus search_o1_tokens or get_o1_config, and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage comes from the word 'Read' and the address-based lookup.

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