get_token_level

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of error behavior (e.g., invalid token ID), return format, or potential null results. The description adds no context about what the level ID represents or whether the token must belong to a specific collection.

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 with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it immediately scannable.

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?

Despite the simple one-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what a level ID is, its format, or what the response will contain. For a successful agent invocation, this lack of return-value context is a notable gap.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, tokenId, with a description 'Token ID to get level for'. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('level ID of a StarGate NFT'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_staking_levels (which lists levels) and get_level_supply (which queries supply for a level) by specifying it retrieves the level ID for a particular token.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., token ownership, existence check) or scenarios where other tools like get_staking_levels would be more appropriate. The name implies a token-level lookup, but explicit usage criteria are absent.

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