Binance Smart Chain: isFourMemeToken

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining the bonding curve condition (not yet listed / migrated off the curve) and the return behavior (returns the token record if found). This clarifies the tool's specific logic without contradicting 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?

The description is a single sentence that concisely conveys the purpose, the condition, and the return value. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations. The description fully covers what it does, the specific condition evaluated, and what is returned. Given the low complexity, the description is complete and leaves no significant gaps.

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 input schema provides a full description of the only parameter: 'BSC token contract address to check against the FourMeme registry (0x-prefixed)'. The description does not add additional parameter details but reinforces the address type. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 checks whether a BSC token contract is registered on FourMeme and still on the bonding curve. The verb 'Check' plus the specific resource ('BSC token contract') and registry ('FourMeme') makes the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'bscfindMemeCoinsViaFourMeme', which finds meme coins, by focusing on a single token's status.

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 when to use this tool: when you have a specific BSC token address and need to verify its FourMeme registration and bonding curve status. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. However, the niche scope is evident, and the sibling list offers alternatives, so the context is sufficient.

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