token_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool costs money, which is a behavioral trait, and lists the data returned. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it can fail (e.g., for non-ERC-20 addresses), or any rate limits or side effects.

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 sentences with no filler. The core facts are front-loaded, and the cost note is a useful, compact addition. Every word earns its place.

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 read tool, the description is mostly complete: it lists the data returned and the cost. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent might want to know the response format or whether the liquidity check is a boolean or a numeric value. The description is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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%, so the schema already documents the address parameter. The description adds context that the address is on Base and that it is an ERC-20 contract, which is slightly more than the schema, but it does not add format or validation details beyond that.

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 names a specific verb ('Base ERC-20 facts') and lists concrete resources: metadata, supply, deployer, USD price, and round-trip liquidity check. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like portfolio or swap_quote, which are clearly different in 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving token facts, and the cost note ('Costs $0.005 USDC via x402') gives a practical condition. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the address parameter.

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