probe_token_capabilities

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

Description discloses a key behavioral trait: it works correctly on EIP-2535 Diamonds where proxy bytecode scanning would give false negatives. This adds value beyond the schema. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and this caveat appropriately informs 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?

Two concise sentences: first defines purpose, second provides critical edge-case context. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

Description explains what the tool detects and the diamond caveat, but does not specify the return format or expected output structure. Given no output schema, the description could be more complete to help the agent understand the response type (e.g., boolean or object).

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 100% with 'token' described as symbol or address. Description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states 'Detect whether a token supports EIP-3009 and EIP-2612', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'detect_token_standard' and 'build_permit' by focusing on these two gasless authorization standards.

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 when needing to check for EIP-3009/EIP-2612 support, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., direct contract checks). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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