Onchain Info

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

The description goes well beyond the read-only annotation by disclosing the three-source join, per-source failure behavior ('each fails to a warning, never silently'), the supply_crosscheck threshold (>1% divergence lands in warnings[] while still returning both values), and the per-field source tag. This is rich, specific behavioral context with no contradiction of annotations.

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 well-structured: a front-loaded summary, a compact bulleted list of sources, a tightly worded explanation of the crosscheck, and a final example. Every sentence adds information and the formatting makes the complex behavior easy to parse.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the input example, all data sources, failure behavior, crosscheck logic, and output tagging. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single `symbol` parameter. It provides an example call and implies a token identifier, but it does not specify accepted formats, case sensitivity, whether contract addresses are allowed, or what token universe is supported. The example helps but leaves meaningful ambiguity.

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 opens with a specific resource ('on-chain footprint of a token') and enumerates the exact data fields from three sources, making the tool's purpose clear. It is clearly distinct from siblings like price_history or quote, though it never explicitly names a sibling 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 intended use is implied by the on-chain data content and by the invocation example onchain_info(symbol='AAPL'), but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of alternatives like token_detail or holder_snapshot. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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