getAlkaneInfoRetrieve metadata for any Alkane protocol using its ID in 'block:tx' format. Get name, symbol, supply, type, and contract details.
Fetch metadata for a single Alkane by its protocol ID: name, symbol, supply, type, and contract details if applicable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Alkane protocol ID in 'block:tx' format (e.g. '2:42'). Both components are required. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds value by enumerating the exact metadata fields returned and noting the conditional 'if applicable' for contract details, which is useful context beyond annotations.
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 action, and no fluff. It efficiently conveys purpose and return fields.
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 simple read-only lookup with one parameter, full schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It explains what data is returned, which suffices given no output schema exists.
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 single parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema with format and example, leaving nothing for the description to add. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool fetches metadata for a single Alkane by protocol ID, listing specific fields (name, symbol, supply, type, contract details). This distinct purpose stands out from siblings like getAlkaneAddressBalance and listAlkanes.
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 'single Alkane' and 'metadata' provide clear context that this tool is for one-item lookups, differentiating it from balance or listing tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just 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.