Get contract / token metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the specific metadata fields returned (type, name, symbol, decimals, deployment tx), which is useful context the annotations do not cover. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral nuances such as timeout, rate limits, or error scenarios.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the most relevant output fields. No wasted words or repetitive information.

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 metadata fetch with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It names the API and lists the returned fields. The annotations cover safety, and the schema handles parameter details. It lacks explicit guidance on the return format or edge cases, but for this simple tool the information is sufficient.

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 50%: chain_id has a description, address does not. The description adds only the term 'contract' to clarify address's role, but does not explain address format requirements or elaborate on chain_id's accepted values (already in schema). It does not compensate for the missing address description, so the agent gets little extra semantic guidance beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Get metadata'), a resource ('contract address'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (ERC-20/721/1155 type, name, symbol, decimals, deployment tx). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balance or get_block, which target different resources.

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 clear context by specifying it retrieves metadata for a contract address via the Avalanche Data API. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, the context is sufficient for a reasonable agent to infer this is the go-to tool for token metadata. No exclusionary guidance is given.

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