Fetch Tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's name ('Fetch token details') and does not address potential side effects, error handling, authentication requirements, or the read-only nature of the operation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first line states the core purpose, and the second line gives a concise usage directive. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists the returned fields (name, symbol, decimals, USD price) and provides usage context ('before asset allocation decisions'). It does not explicitly describe error behavior for invalid token IDs, but given the simplicity of the tool and the rich schema, it is reasonably complete, earning a 4.

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 schema has 100% coverage for both parameters, including a detailed description of tokenIds with an array example and requestId marked as SYSTEM PARAMETER. The description adds the nuance 'exact token id' and the return fields, but these do not substantially enrich the parameter semantics beyond the schema. Thus the baseline 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 verb ('Fetch') and resource ('token details by exact token id'), and lists the specific fields returned (name, symbol, decimals, USD price). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling find-tokens, but 'exact token id' implies a distinct lookup behavior from search, giving it a 4 rather than 5.

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 instruction 'Use this tool before making any asset allocation decisions' provides a clear, specific context for when the tool should be invoked. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., find-tokens for searching), so it stops short of a 5.

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