loot_token_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects and safety. It explicitly states 'Chain reads only, no API needed,' which clearly signals a read-only, side-effect-free operation. While it doesn't detail error behavior or rate limits, the core safety trait is disclosed. This is strong for a read tool, though some nuance about failure modes is missing.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the purpose, then enumerates included data fields, and adds a safety note. Every word contributes meaning; there is no filler or redundancy. The length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key data returned and the safety profile. It does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., unlaunched token, invalid address), but for a straightforward state query, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. A 4 is fair given the simple nature.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does by stating 'One token's live on-chain state,' which implies the token parameter is the address of the token of interest. The parameter name 'token' and the schema pattern (Ethereum address) already convey the format. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond that, and given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate—adequate but not rich.

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 states a clear verb (retrieve) and resource (one token's live on-chain state) and enumerates specific data points (name, supply, pool, spot price, FDV, game ledger state). It is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings: it focuses on a single token's detailed state, while siblings like loot_list_tokens list tokens and loot_quote provide quotes. No ambiguity.

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 a single token's on-chain state, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't say 'use loot_list_tokens for multiple tokens' or 'use loot_quote for pricing'. The context is clear, but exclusions and alternative guidance are absent, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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