Get token

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the only disclosure. It explicitly says it reads data and returns an error for non-existent tokens, which is useful. It does not discuss side effects (though 'read' implies none) or potential external fetch behavior for off-chain URLs, so some behavioral depth is missing.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. Every phrase adds value: the field list sets expectations and the error clause sets failure behavior.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It enumerates the returned data and states the error condition. The schema handles parameter documentation, and there are no nested objects or complex behaviors requiring further explanation.

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 schema covers the single parameter completely, including the tokenId description and exclusivity constraint. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 identifies a read operation on a specific resource ('minted token') and lists the exact fields returned (owner, seed, nonce, tokenURI, image/metadata URLs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_nonce or collection_stats, which target different data or operations.

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 phrase 'Read a minted token' implies the use case: call this when you need a token's stored and off-chain data. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use this tool or which sibling tool to prefer for related queries, leaving the differentiation to the agent.

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