Get Token Approvals

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: pagination via cursor, end-of-pages semantics, and a 1-credit cost.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by pagination behavior and cost. Every sentence carries operational value with no filler.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination, and cost well. It does not describe the shape of returned approval records, but enough context is provided for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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, but the description adds meaning for the cursor parameter by explaining that absent or null cursor indicates no more pages. It also reinforces the single-chain scope, though it does not add details for address or limit beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it gets ERC-20 token approvals/allowances for a wallet, scoped to spender contracts on one chain. This is precise enough for an agent to distinguish it from portfolio, token overview, and chain-listing siblings without opening the schema.

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 implies the tool is for inspecting a wallet's ERC-20 approvals on a single chain, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives such as token overview or portfolio tools. Usage is inferable from the resource wording but not directly stated.

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