Get token info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclose burden. It tells the agent exactly what kind of data is returned and the supported token standards, which is strong transparency for a read-only metadata getter. It could add explicit error/unsupported-contract behavior, but nothing about the description misleads about side effects.

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?

A single precise sentence contains the resource, standards, output fields, and data source with no filler. Its information is front-loaded: the main subject appears first.

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 token-metadata lookup, the description plus fully documented schema covers every required input and key output fields. No output schema exists, but the description itself enumerates the metadata returned, so the definition is contextually self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents that address is required and network has l1/l2-testnet enum with l1 as default. The description does not need to add parameter details, so it starts at the baseline 3.

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 names the resource (ERC-20/721/1155 token contract) and the metadata fields returned (name, symbol, decimals, supply, type). It is specific and distinguishes its purpose from sibling transaction/balance/contract-read tools, but does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 use case is clearly implied: use this when token metadata is needed from Blockscout. Yet the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over read_contract, get_balance, or related sibling tools, so guidance remains implicit rather than direct.

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