Get HoodGrow Base B20 token registry

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial context: reads are performed directly from token contracts, data is refreshed every 4 hours, status is derived from on-chain totalSupply(), and current supply is zero pre-launch. It also discloses access/pricing details. There is no contradiction 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and provides dense, useful detail. However, it repeats the chain ID ('Base mainnet (chain 8453)' and 'on Base (chain 8453)') and the totalSupply-based status logic twice, which is slightly redundant though not bloated.

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 zero-parameter, read-only registry tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields, source chain, refresh cadence, liveness semantics, pre-launch caveats, and access cost. This is sufficient for an agent to select and safely call the tool.

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 zero parameters, so parameter documentation is inapplicable and the baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining what the tool will return conceptually (symbol, name, decimals, status) without needing to document any parameters.

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 identifies the tool as a registry of Base mainnet (chain 8453) B20 native-equity-token metadata plus a liveness signal. It specifies the exact scope ('fixed set of known tokens') and distinguishes it from siblings like get_token or get_markets by describing a registry-level read, not price/market data.

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 clear operational context, including the pre-launch state, the automatic transition to 'live' when totalSupply() > 0, and the explicit warning not to treat pre_launch entries as tradable. It does not name alternative tools for prices, liquidity, or individual token details, so it falls short of full when-to-use-versus-alternatives guidance.

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