get_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not elaborate on what 'detailed information' includes, potential response size, rate limits, or error behavior, so it offers minimal transparency beyond the verb.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words, earning a high score for efficiency. However, it is under-specified, missing usage and parameter context, so it is concise but not maximally informative.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what 'detailed information' returns and how to construct the ID array. It does neither, and also lacks usage guidance, so the description is incomplete for a tool of this 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 0%, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining how to specify token identifiers. The only hint is 'multiple tokens', which vaguely ties to the 'ids' parameter. The schema does include descriptions for nested fields (networkId, address), but the tool description adds no extra meaning, leaving parameter semantics under-explained for an agent.

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 'Get detailed information about multiple tokens' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('tokens'), and the word 'multiple' differentiates it from the singular sibling get_token_info. However, it does not explicitly state the difference from other token-related siblings, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_token_info or filter_tokens. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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