token_approvals

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the output (list of ERC20 approvals with risk levels) and implies a read-only operation. It does not detail side effects, pagination, or authentication needs, but the straightforward nature of the tool makes this adequate.

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 sentences with front-loaded purpose, no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's function, required inputs, and output.

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?

With no output schema, the description briefly mentions the return value as 'a list of ERC20 token approvals and their associated security risk levels'. This is informative but lacks structural details like fields or pagination, leaving some ambiguity for the AI agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides examples for chainName and walletAddress, but these largely duplicate the schema descriptions. The mention of ENS support and alternative chain formats adds marginal value.

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 the tool returns a list of token approvals across contracts, categorized by spenders, for a wallet's assets. It specifies the resource ('approvals') and the action ('get a list'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like token_balances or erc20_token_transfers.

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 lists required parameters with examples, providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The lack of exclusions is acceptable given the tool's unique purpose.

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