get_token_meta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get metadata' without specifying what metadata is included, whether it is a safe read-only operation, or any potential rate limits or required permissions. This is a minimal read operation, but the description lacks the detail needed to set expectations.

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, succinct sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, though it could have been more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate by explaining expected behavior and return values. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about the response structure and the exact scope of 'metadata.' For a tool with only one parameter, this is a clear gap in completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'address' parameter beyond implying it identifies a token. There is no clarification of the address format, whether it is a token contract address, or any validation. The description adds almost no meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter name.

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 action ('Get metadata') and the resource ('a token'), with the source ('from Solscan'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_token_price or get_token_transfers, which focus on specific aspects rather than general metadata. However, 'metadata' is somewhat broad and not delimited, so it stops short of a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., get_token_holders, get_token_price). There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without any contextual direction.

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