getBizTokenDetails

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint, such as returning risk flags, social links, and order quantity limits. However, it instructs the agent to handle 'showMessage=1' and 'linkName'/'linkAddress', which are not present in the input schema, making the described notification behavior impossible to trigger and actively misleading.

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 far too long for a simple two-parameter read operation and repeats itself: the 'Agent hint' paragraph duplicates almost verbatim the intent, parameter source, notification instruction, and negative usage guidance from the main description. The core guidance could be conveyed in half the words.

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 simple read-only token-detail query, the description covers purpose, output highlights, parameter source, and exclusions. However, the unsupported notification-flow instructions and the absent output schema leave an agent with an incomplete and partially inaccurate mental model of what the tool actually returns and what inputs it truly accepts.

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 carries the burden of explaining the parameters. It does say to take chainCode and tokenAddress from getBizTokenList or getAssetList, which helps with provenance, but it does not explain the meaning or format of either parameter. Worse, it references showMessage, linkName, and linkAddress as if they were parameters, even though the schema only allows chainCode and tokenAddress.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Query detailed information for a specific on-chain token', and lists concrete returned fields such as project description, social links, risk flag, and token status. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from getBizTokenList and getBizTokenPriceList, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 explicitly says when to call this tool ('when user asks about a specific token's details, project info, or risk status'), where to get the required parameters (from getBizTokenList or getAssetList), and when not to use it (for prices or browsing tokens, with named alternatives). This is unusually complete guidance.

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