get_brc20_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It enumerates return fields (max supply, minted supply, mint limit, decimals, deploy inscription, transaction count), which is useful, but says nothing about whether the ticker lookup is case-sensitive, what happens for unknown tickers, or rate limits. For a read lookup with zero annotation coverage, this is under-specified.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the action and lookup key followed by the returned fields. Nothing extraneous.

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 single-param read tool with 100% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers purpose and return fields adequately. However, with no annotations to carry the behavioral profile, the description should disclose a bit more about lookup behavior and edge cases; it is minimally viable but incomplete on behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the ticker parameter with examples (ordi, sats) and length constraints. The description only restates that the tool takes a ticker by saying 'by ticker,' adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (BRC-20 token details) with the lookup key (ticker) and enumerates the returned fields. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_brc20_holders, get_brc20_balances, and get_brc20_activity without opening the schema.

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?

Implies usage by naming the ticker as the lookup key, which naturally scopes it as a single-token lookup. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the sibling BRC-20 tools (holders, balances, activity). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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