fluid_get_ftoken_details

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description makes it clear this is a read operation ("Get") and lists the output fields, but it does not mention any authorization needs, rate limits, or error behavior. It adds some value beyond the tool name by detailing what data is returned, though not extensively.

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 front-loads the action and resource, followed by a list of data fields to expect. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple read-only nature and absence of an output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields provides useful expectations. However, it omits guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools and does not explain the optional rpc_url, leaving slight gaps for an agent deciding or invoking the tool.

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 covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions (chain and ftoken_address), and the description does not add extra context for those. The rpc_url parameter has no description in the schema and is not clarified in the description, leaving ambiguity about its purpose. Overall, the description contributes little to parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves detailed information about a specific fToken and enumerates the fields returned (name, symbol, underlying asset, rates, totals). The word 'specific' distinguishes it from sibling tools like fluid_get_all_ftokens and fluid_get_all_ftokens_details, which operate on all ftokens.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need details for a single fToken. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like fluid_get_all_ftokens_details, and there is no guidance on prerequisites such as RPC URL usage.

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