Get token info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety and caching behavior are covered. The description adds that values come live from the chain via the caller's RPC rather than a cache, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about behavior for unknown or ambiguous symbols.

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?

A single compact sentence with the returned fields and the data source front-loaded; every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description listing the returned fields effectively covers the output contract and the data source. Only the error/ambiguity behavior and explicit routing against sibling read tools are 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%, so both parameters (chain, token) are fully documented in the schema, including the enum-ish chain list and address-or-symbol token format. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, 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?

The description names a concrete resource and enumerates the exact fields returned (symbol, decimals, name) plus the data source ('read from the chain through your RPC'). It is clearly distinct in subject matter from siblings like get_quote or build_swap, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives or what preconditions apply. The only implicit cue is 'through your RPC,' which hints at the environment but not at when an agent should pick this over get_quote or get_deployments.

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