Retrieve SIP-010 token metadata—name, symbol, decimals, and total supply—by token symbol or contract ID to verify asset details before wallet or DeFi actions.
Get metadata for a SIP-010 token (name, symbol, decimals, supply).
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | Token symbol or contract ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only metadata lookup and lists returned fields, but does not describe error behavior, token-not-found handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the lookup is cached/live.
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 core purpose is front-loaded and expressed in one efficient sentence. The second sentence is a promotional cross-sell tip rather than invocation guidance, which slightly weakens focus but does not make the definition 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?
For a simple one-parameter read operation, the description and schema are mostly sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description could do more to clarify return shape and failure behavior.
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 only parameter is fully documented in the schema as "Token symbol or contract ID," and the schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 states a clear verb and resource: "Get metadata for a SIP-010 token," and enumerates the returned fields (name, symbol, decimals, supply). It is specific enough to understand the operation, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby token-related siblings such as bitflow_get_tokens or tenero_token_info.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_token_balance, list_user_tokens, bitflow_get_tokens, or tenero_token_info. The included tip points to earning_opportunities as a next step, but that is not guidance for selecting or qualifying this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.