get_token_info_by_symbol

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

The description indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and is annotated with openWorldHint=true, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling for unknown symbols, chain requirements, or potential rate limits. The annotation doesn't clearly cover these aspects either, so transparency is moderate.

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 one sentence of 15 words, front-loads the key action, and has no filler. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose and return fields.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description names the return fields, which helps the agent anticipate the result. However, it does not mention the optional chainId parameter's effect or any error handling behavior, but those are captured in the schema. Overall, it's sufficiently complete given the 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?

The input schema has descriptions for both parameters (symbol and chainId), covering 100% of the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics; it merely repeats the 'by symbol' aspect already in the schema. So a baseline score of 3 applies.

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 function ('Get the ERC20 token info'), the lookup key ('by its symbol'), and the returned fields (contract address, decimals, name). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_token_info_by_ticker or explorer_get_token_info.

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 implies the tool is used when you have a token symbol, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over similar alternatives such as get_token_info_by_ticker or explorer_get_token_info. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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