get_token_info

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 discloses return scope (Horizen address plus Base/Base Sepolia cross-chain addresses), highlights the notable cbBTC decimal pitfall ('8 decimals — NOT 18'), and explains the omit-token behavior. It doesn't cover auth/rate limits, but this is a read-only info tool where that is less critical.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler: token specs/decimals in sentence one, cross-chain address scope in sentence two, and omit-token behavior in sentence three. The most salient content is front-loaded.

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 2-param optional read tool with enums and full schema coverage, the description provides the essential domain facts (decimals, networks, list-all behavior) needed to invoke it correctly. The absence of a precise return format is a minor gap, and no output schema exists to compensate.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema with the same token/network details. The description largely restates this, adding minor texture like 'governance' and 'bridged' and re-emphasizing the cbBTC decimal warning. This meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage but adds little new parameter meaning.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get token addresses and specs') and a specific resource ('tokens on Horizen'), enumerating the three supported tokens. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_chain_info or get_contract_address, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 implied: use this tool when you need token addresses/specs or want to list all tokens. It provides within-tool guidance (omit token to list all), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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