token_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a specific edge case tolerance ('bytes32 instead of string'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not clarify if the tool reverts on non-standard tokens or other limitations.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence captures the core purpose, and the second adds a valuable tolerance note.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers inputs implicitly and outputs explicitly. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what data to expect, though it could mention potential error conditions.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning to the 'token' parameter beyond implying it is an address. It does not specify format or constraints like checksum requirements.

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 action ('Read') and the specific resource ('name, symbol, decimals and total supply directly from a token contract'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that cover other token aspects like balance or transfers.

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 basic token metadata retrieval but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'token_info' or 'detect_token_standard'.

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