get_token_image

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't describe whether this is read-only, how the image is returned, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. A read-only operation is implied but not stated.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple getter tool, though it could be slightly more informative.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should compensate by explaining what metadata is returned and the expected parameter formats. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool 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% with two required parameters (chain, tokenAddress) that have no descriptions in the schema. The description adds no meaning to these parameters—no format guidance, no accepted chain identifiers, and no information about tokenAddress format.

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 (token social-card image metadata), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings that deal with trades, balances, or token details. It's clear what the tool retrieves, though the term 'social-card image' could be slightly ambiguous without additional context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_token_details or get_trending_tokens. The description offers no context about when this metadata would be relevant, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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