fomo_token_details

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what metrics are returned, but it does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, describe response structure or units, clarify whether 'holders' means a count or a list, or mention any rate limits or errors.

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 compact phrase with no redundant words and the key resource ('a token id') appears at the end. It could be improved by adding a verb and sentence structure, but it is appropriately short.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides a minimal but viable summary of the expected return content. It is missing ambiguity resolution ('volumes' over what period? 'holders' count or list?), but it is not severely incomplete for a simple endpoint.

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 coverage is 0% and the description merely restates that the parameter is a token id, which the schema property 'tokenId' already conveys. It adds no detail about the identifier's format, token standard, or domain, so an agent gains little parameter meaning beyond the input schema.

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 resource (a token id) and lists the exact data returned: buy/sell counts, volumes, and holders. This is clear enough to distinguish the endpoint from general token search/filter tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'for a token id' implies the tool is used when you need market/activity metrics for a known token identifier. It provides no explicit comparison with siblings such as fomo_trading_activity or fomo_top_holders, nor any when-not-to-use guidance, so usage is only inferred.

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