chainpeek: SPL token mint info on Solana

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive); the description adds substantial context beyond them: 422 not_a_mint for wrong address types, 503 on RPC failure, that neither error is charged, mainnet/confirmed commitment, latency ~0.2-1s, the USD 0.002 price and 10 free reads/IP/day, and an untrusted-data warning. This is unusually rich disclosure for a read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and alternatives, then packs errors, commitment, pricing, and latency into tight clauses with no filler. It is long, but nearly every sentence carries a distinct fact an agent needs; slight density cost prevents a 5.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, yet the description maps the key fields (supply, decimals, ui_supply, mint_authority/freeze_authority null-when-renounced, extensions, label). Combined with error semantics, payment model, and network scope, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'mint' param, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that legacy Metaplex names/symbols are not accepted and that a non-mint address produces a 422 'not_a_mint', which tells the agent how validation actually behaves beyond the base58 pattern in 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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource — 'Get the supply, decimals and authorities of a Solana token mint' — and immediately names the two sibling tools it is not (get_solana_token_price, check_solana_token_safety). An agent can distinguish it from adjacent Solana tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: price questions go to get_solana_token_price and rug-risk to check_solana_token_safety, with the remaining use case (mint metadata/authorities) clearly this tool's domain. The scoping is concrete and leaves nothing to inference.

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