madeonsol_token_batch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: 'DB queries batched with IN(...); dex-stream + RPC fan-outs run in parallel.' This explains the internal execution mechanism, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise with three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, adds technical details in the second, and provides usage guidance with a cost comparison in the third. Every sentence is valuable and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape: 'Returns the same per-mint shape as madeonsol_token_get.' It also covers input constraints, internal behavior, and performance characteristics. For a batch lookup tool with simple input, this is complete and leaves no major questions unanswered.

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% for the single parameter 'mints', which has a clear description in the schema: '1–50 base58 Solana token mints.' The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning to this parameter beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Bulk lookup of up to 50 mints in one request.' It specifies the action (lookup), resource (mints), and constraint (up to 50). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool madeonsol_token_get by stating 'Returns the same per-mint shape as madeonsol_token_get.' This provides clear differentiation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Ideal for sniper pipelines scoring many tokens at once.' It also highlights the performance benefit: '~10-20× cheaper than N sequential calls.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for single mint lookups), the comparison to the single-mint sibling implies the appropriate context. This is clear but could be more explicit.

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