get_tokens_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals a non-obvious behavior: missing/never-observed mints are omitted rather than causing an error. It also caps the batch at 50. It does not explicitly state this is read-only, but 'metadata' strongly implies a read operation and no mutation is suggested.

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, each earning its place: one states the core operation and limit, the other documents a key edge-case behavior and the recommended use relative to the sibling. No filler or redundancy.

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 batch read tool, the description covers the essential calling context: batch size, handling of absent mints, and the preferred use pattern. It lacks an explicit note about the return format or ordering, but the absence is minor given the simple resource and sibling naming.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the mints parameter thoroughly, including type, length limits, min/max array size, and base58 encoding. The description adds little beyond restating 'up to 50 mints,' but it does reinforce the batching semantic. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Batch metadata for up to 50 mints,' which immediately distinguishes it from the singular sibling tool get_token_metadata. The behavior for missing mints adds further precision about what the tool does.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Prefer over many get_token_metadata calls.' It also implicitly contrasts with the singular sibling, giving clear routing guidance without needing to inspect either tool's schema.

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