Token Info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description only needs to add context. It does: it discloses that the read happens on-chain and that the result includes a behavioral ERC-20 conformance check, which is a real semantic beyond the annotations. It does not describe behavior on invalid/non-ERC-20 addresses, but the bar is lower given annotation coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the usage note. The trailing 'Input: the token contract address (0x + 40 hex)' duplicates the schema's parameter description, which is the one mildly wasteful element, keeping it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still signals the conformance-check output. Purpose, when-to-use, and input format are all covered; the only gap is explicit sibling routing (e.g. token_balance for amounts), which is minor for a one-parameter read tool.

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% with a single required parameter, so the schema already documents the address format. The description restates the same 0x + 40 hex format without adding syntax, network caveats, or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (read), resource (ERC-20 token metadata), chain (Base), and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, symbol, decimals, total supply) plus a contract-validity signal. This clearly separates it from siblings like token_balance (balance only) and address_report, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'verify a token contract before trusting or displaying it.' That is a clear trigger condition. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it (e.g. vs. token_balance for holdings), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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