get_token_allowance_evm

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

The description adds 'returns amount in base units', which is useful context beyond the openWorldHint annotation. However, the annotation is minimal and does not declare read-only status; the description implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or disclose any limitations or error 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple getter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and return unit, while the schema covers parameters and defaults. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing sibling-tool differentiation or explicit chain behavior, but it is adequate for the tool's low complexity.

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 100% for all 4 parameters, so the description gets a baseline of 3. It adds the 'base units' detail, which helps interpret the result, but does not add further meaning beyond the schema's parameter explanations.

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 core action ('Get the allowance of an ERC20 token for a spender') and adds the return unit ('returns amount in base units'). This makes the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similarly named siblings like get_token_allowance or evm_get_allowance, relying on the '_evm' suffix in the tool name.

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 tool versus sibling tools such as evm_get_allowance or get_token_allowance. The description does not mention chain applicability, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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