get_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it does not deliver. It does not say whether the call is read-only (implied by 'get' but unstated), what authorization is needed, whether results are paginated, or what the response contains.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, which is structurally fine, but the brevity is achieved through omission rather than efficiency. Still, nothing is wasted or misleading.

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 4-parameter, 2-required query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It should at minimum document the pagination params and chain identifier formats to let an agent invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% across four parameters (page, chain, limit, tokenAddress). The description only vaguely gestures at a token and adds no semantics for chain formats, pagination behavior, or limit defaults, leaving all four params undocumented.

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 verb+resource ('Get comments') which is clearer than a tautology, but 'for a token' is vague (comments keyed by token address?) and there is no differentiation from the sibling add_comment or from other token-detail tools. An agent gets the gist but not the distinguishing scope.

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, no mention of when to prefer this over alternatives like get_token_details or add_comment, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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