arc72_get_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states conditional behavior (owner/tokenURI/approved only if tokenId is set) and optional behavior (supportsInterface selector), which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error handling, but 'facts' strongly implies a non-mutating query.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs all essential conditional logic with minimal words. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the core behavior, parameter semantics, and conditional logic well. It might be slightly stronger with an explicit note about return format or behavior when tokenId is absent, but the provided facts list makes the expected output clear enough for most use cases.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context by explaining how tokenId controls which fields are returned and clarifies that interfaceSelectorHex is an 8-hex selector. This meaningfully supplements the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'Aggregate' with resource 'ARC-72 facts', and immediately lists the exact data returned (totalSupply, owner, tokenURI, approved, supportsInterface). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like arc72_total_supply or arc72_owner_of by presenting a combined, conditional query.

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 effectively communicates when to use this tool: when you need multiple ARC-72 metadata facts in one call. It implies a read-only aggregation use case but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., if you only need totalSupply, use arc72_total_supply).

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