get_token_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no authentication is required and enumerates the data returned, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not cover error behavior, chain support limits, or rate limits, so the behavioral picture is only partial.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action and lists the payload, plus a two-word auth note. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it enumerates return fields and flags the no-auth property. Minor gaps remain around supported chains and failure modes, but nothing critical for invoking the tool is missing.

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 100%, so both 'chain' and 'tokenAddress' are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about identifier format or how chain identifiers are specified, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Get detailed token info') and enumerates the returned data classes (price, market cap, liquidity, DEX pools, social links, security). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from lookalike siblings such as get_token_trades or get_token_image, but the field list makes its scope self-evident.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup tool for a given token, and 'No auth' hints it is a lightweight call. There is no statement of when to prefer it over get_token_trades, get_token_image, or the trending/top token list tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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