evm_get_allowance

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

The description is consistent with the `readOnlyHint: true` annotation, as 'Get' implies a read operation. It adds clarity about the owner-spender-token relationship but does not disclose return format (e.g., raw wei vs. decimal-adjusted), error behavior, or edge cases. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not enriched.

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, concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the action and resource, fully occupying its purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the return value represents, especially units (raw wei vs. token decimal adjustment). It also doesn't mention behavior for unapproved allowances (returns 0) or invalid contracts. While the core purpose and parameters are clear, the missing return semantics leave a moderate gap.

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?

All four parameters have descriptive schema entries, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description's phrase 'from owner to spender for a token contract' mirrors the schema's ownerAddress, spenderAddress, and tokenAddress fields but adds no new format, type, or default information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specifies a clear action ('Get'), a specific resource type (ERC-20 allowance), and the key participants (owner, spender, token contract). It is distinct from sibling tools that handle balances, transfers, or approvals, and it accurately conveys the tool's scope.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like `evm_get_token_balance` or `get_token_allowance_evm`, nor does it suggest checking allowance before an approve/transfer action. There is no explicit or implied context for selection.

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