get_ft_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' and the enumeration of returned fields make it clear this is a safe read with a predictable return shape, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about behavior on an invalid/nonexistent contract, caching, or rate limits.

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?

A single tight sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the returned fields parenthesized for quick scanning. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse to carry usage context.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields (name, symbol, decimals, icon) is a reasonable stand-in for a return-value contract. It still leaves an agent guessing about error behavior and the exact contract-ID format, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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?

Only one parameter (token_contract) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format hints (e.g., whether it expects a hex account ID or a NEAR-format 'name.near' contract), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (fungible token metadata) and even enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_ft_balance (metadata vs balance), though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like get_ft_balance and get_account_info in the same namespace, the description should say something like 'use this to resolve token decimals/symbol, not to read balances,' but it offers nothing.

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