chainpeek: get ERC-20 token metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds value beyond them: returned fields (name, symbol, decimals, total supply, is_erc20:false), latency 0.2-1 s, cost USD 0.003, a 10-read/day free tier, and a prompt-injection warning about attacker-controlled on-chain strings. That is substantive operational and safety context.

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 disambiguation, then packs returns, latency, pricing, free tier and safety in terse clauses. Dense but nearly every sentence carries distinct information; slightly list-like stacking keeps it off 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?

Even though an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the description still covers the routing decision, cost/quota, latency, chain scope and the untrusted-input caveat. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% with only two required parameters, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description echoes the chain list ('Ethereum, Base or Robinhood Chain') but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the enum, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('get ERC-20 token metadata') and scopes it to three named chains. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_balance and get_total_supply, so an agent can route without opening other schemas.

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?

States the alternatives and the condition that selects each: 'For a holder's balance use get_balance; for supply alone use get_total_supply.' This is explicit when/when-not routing, not implied usage.

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