get_token_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a useful error semantic (404 → mint not in Anaxer yet) and implies a read-only lookup, which meaningfully helps the agent anticipate outcomes beyond simple success.

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?

Two short sentences carry the full payload: what is returned, when to use it, and a special error case. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent what fields to expect and how to interpret a 404. It is slightly light on details about the shape of 'socials' or why a mint might not be in Anaxer, but these are minor gaps.

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 input schema already documents the single 'mint' parameter with type and length constraints (100% schema coverage). The description adds only the phrase 'one mint,' which confirms singularity but does not add much beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 resource ('one mint') and the kind of data returned (name, symbol, supply, socials), and distinguishes this singular-lookup tool from its plural sibling get_tokens_metadata by emphasizing 'one mint.' The phrase 'metadata lookups' also separates it from price/trade 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?

It gives an explicit use case: 'Use for "what is this token" / metadata lookups.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the singular vs. plural distinction and the lookup vs. price/trade framing provide clear context.

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