Lends Get Token State

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds which data is read, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid tokens, non-ERC-20 tokens, or an empty spenders list. This is acceptable given annotations, but not a strong additional disclosure.

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 filler. It states the action and enumerates the returned data efficiently; every word contributes.

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 read-only tool with robust safety annotations and only three simple parameters, the description names all major output categories despite there being no output schema. It is mostly complete, though it leaves the meaning of an empty spenders list and exact return structure implicit.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description is the main semantic source. It maps 'owner balance' to owner and 'selected allowances' to spenders, providing meaning beyond raw schema types. However, it does not explain spenders defaults, max length, or how an empty spenders list behaves, leaving some invocation details to inference.

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 uses a clear verb ('Read') and a specific resource: ERC-20 metadata, owner balance, total supply, and selected allowances. It differentiates from sibling getters by enumerating token-level data, though it does not name a sibling or explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives among the many get_* and quote_* siblings. The read nature is implied, but there are no selection conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references.

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