cambrian_solana_token_snapshot

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden itself. It discloses concurrency ('concurrently fetches'), resilience ('Tolerates partial failures'), and a notable return aspect ('Returns retrievedAt timestamp'). For a read-style aggregator, these are valuable behavioral traits, though it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, authentication needs, or per-section failure behavior.

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 two tight sentences with front-loaded purpose. The first sentence packs the full scope efficiently; the second adds resilience, return info, and a docs pointer. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 complex aggregate tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main data domains, partial failure behavior, the retrievedAt timestamp, and directs the user to cambrian_docs for field-level details. This is strong, but it still leaves exact response shape and explicit alternatives to inference; the docs pointer mitigates the gap but does not fully replace them.

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 provides 100% description coverage, including token_symbol's conditional Deep42 behavior and token_address's meaning. The tool description itself adds little beyond the fact that social data is part of the snapshot; the schema already carries the parameter semantics, so the 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 opens with 'Full Solana token snapshot' and lists precisely what is fetched: token details, current price, 1h/4h/24h price-volume, top holders, pool list, and Deep42 social data. This is a specific verb plus resource and clearly distinguishes the aggregate tool from the many granular sibling tools for price, holders, pools, and social data.

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 implies usage via 'Full ... snapshot' and the enumerated data categories, so an agent can infer this is the aggregate/comprehensive option. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over dedicated tools like cambrian_solana_token_details, cambrian_solana_price_current, or cambrian_solana_tokens_holders, and it gives no exclusions or alternative-routing guidance.

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