radiant_get_token_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral transparency on its own. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get') with no mention of side effects, but it also does not disclose error handling, authentication requirements, or the exact structure of the returned metadata. The description is not misleading, but it lacks depth beyond implying a read-only fetch.

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 concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It front-loads the key action and resource, and the parenthetical example fields add useful context without padding. This is an efficient, well-structured description with no wasted words.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for a simple getter. It lists example fields that hint at the return content. However, it does not explain how this tool differs from similar token tools, nor does it mention potential errors or the exact return format, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding whether to use it.

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 already documents token_ref as 'Token reference (txid_vout)' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter, such as format examples, constraints, or clarifications about what 'txid_vout' means. Since the schema covers the parameter fully, the description adds no extra value in this dimension.

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 that the tool retrieves full CBOR metadata for a Glyph token, listing examples like name, description, image, and attributes. It specifies the verb (Get) and resource (CBOR metadata) precisely. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling token tools like radiant_get_token, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 other token-related tools such as radiant_get_token, radiant_get_token_utxos, or radiant_get_token_balance. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative conditions. An agent would have to infer from the name and description that this is for metadata retrieval, but without explicit routing guidance, it is easy to confuse with similar getters.

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