token_allowance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the call is read-only, what happens if parameters are invalid (e.g., non-existent token), or if any network calls are made. The description only states the basic function.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure or any additional details. It could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

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 tool has no output schema and is moderately complex (3 required parameters), the description should at least hint at the return value (e.g., the allowance amount). It does not, making it incomplete for an agent to reliably interpret the response.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema) and the description only mentions 'owner' and 'spender' but not 'token'. Although it clarifies the roles of owner and spender, it omits the token parameter entirely, leaving ambiguity about its format (e.g., address vs symbol).

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 identifies the tool as returning an ERC-20 allowance, but uses a noun phrase ('allowance an owner has granted') instead of an action verb like 'gets' or 'returns'. This makes the purpose somewhat vague, though it does distinguish from sibling tools like 'build_token_approve' which modifies allowance.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_token_balance' or 'list_token_holdings'. The description does not mention any preconditions, limitations, or hints about ERC-20 tokens specifically.

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