Upload token logo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the auth prerequisite (signature), accepted formats, and size limit. However it says nothing about whether an upload overwrites an existing logo, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens on failure, which matter for a write operation.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action plus format limits, the prerequisite signature, and the input-mode choice. Nothing is repeated or wasted, and the core action 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and seven parameters, the description covers the critical prerequisite and input alternatives but omits the meaning of timestamp and mimeType and any success/return behavior. It is adequate to attempt a call but not 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?

Schema coverage is only 14% (only chainId is documented), so the description must compensate; it does partially by explaining filePath vs base64 and the signature prerequisite. It leaves 'token', 'timestamp', and 'mimeType' entirely unexplained, so nearly half the parameters remain opaque.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Uploads the logo') and bounds it with accepted formats (png, jpeg, webp, gif) and a 5 MB size cap. It also names the sibling it depends on (prepare_metadata_message), which separates it from save_metadata or apply_badge, though it does not state how it differs from the broader metadata-saving tools.

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?

'Needs a signature from prepare_metadata_message' gives an explicit prerequisite that routes the agent to the correct earlier step in the workflow. 'Provide filePath or base64' clarifies the two input modes, but there is no statement of when not to use it or what to do if a logo already exists.

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