Token Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: unknown symbols raise an MCP isError, the multiplier block surfaces pending splits with a concrete format, and the corporate actions list is specifically limited to the latest 5. These give the agent expectations for edge cases and output shape without repeating annotation data.

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 dense but every component earns its place: the initial phrase states scope, the list defines contents, the error note handles failure mode, and the example anchors parameter use. It is front-loaded with 'Full dossier' and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary selection and invocation context: the full list of returned information, the pending-split string format, unknown-symbol error behavior, and an example call. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide when to call this and how to pass the parameter.

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 has zero description coverage for the single 'symbol' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by providing a concrete example (symbol="AAPL") and by repeatedly referring to tokens, making the parameter's meaning clear. It stops short of fully specifying symbol format/case-sensitivity, but for a token platform this is sufficient.

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?

Description begins with 'Full dossier for one token' and then enumerates the exact contents (metadata, quote view, corporate actions, multiplier block, trading capabilities, warnings), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like quote, corporate_actions, and token_list by being a comprehensive single-token aggregation rather than a narrow endpoint.

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 makes clear this is the go-to tool when a complete overview of a single token is needed, including corporate actions and multiplier warnings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the rich context ('Full dossier', 'last 5 corporate actions', 'warning') implies when token_detail should be preferred over more specialized siblings.

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