detect_token_standard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the detection method but omits important details: return format, behavior on non-standard contracts, error cases, or performance considerations. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and method without extraneous details. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description fails to specify the return value (e.g., a string identifier for the detected standard). This omission makes the tool incomplete for an agent to understand its output. Complexity is low, but the description should cover the return format.

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 only parameter 'contract' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description adds no additional meaning about its format (e.g., hex address, checksum) or constraints. The agent receives no clarification beyond the schema type definition.

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?

Description clearly states the tool detects token standards (ERC-20, ERC-721, ERC-1155) and specifies the method (ERC-165 supportsInterface with ERC-20 fallback). It distinguishes itself from sibling token tools like token_info or probe_token_capabilities.

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 token standard detection but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., token_info, probe_token_capabilities). No when-not or alternative recommendations are given.

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