get_token_intelligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions cost ($0.06), which is useful context about pricing. However, it doesn't disclose other important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'get' in the name implies reading).

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence efficiently lists the comprehensive data provided, and the second adds important cost information. However, the list of data points could be more structured (e.g., grouped by category) for better readability.

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 the single parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what data is returned and the cost. However, for a tool with no annotations and potentially complex return data (multiple metrics), it could benefit from more detail about response format or limitations.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'token_address' documented as 'Token address'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: providing comprehensive token data including price, volume, market cap, holder stats, and other metrics. It specifies the resource (token data) and scope (comprehensive), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'check_token_risk' or 'watch_token' which might overlap in functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'check_token_risk', 'check_token_risk_premium', and 'watch_token', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred. The cost mention ($0.06) hints at a paid service but doesn't clarify usage context.

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