bags_get_token_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only and free, which is useful. But it does not mention authentication requirements (sibling bags_authenticate suggests auth may be needed), rate limits, error behavior, or pagination/return format details.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core subject. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from clarifying the return shape and how it differs from overlapping siblings like bags_get_token_claim_stats and bags_get_partner_stats.

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 schema already fully documents the single tokenMint parameter with 'The token mint address to analyze,' and the description's 'for a token' adds no new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, 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?

The description specifies a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource set: pool info, claim stats, and bonding curve progress for a token. It is distinct from siblings like bags_get_token_claim_stats by being broader, though it does not explicitly name or contrast siblings.

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 gives implied usage through its resource list and the 'Free read-only tier' note, signaling it is a low-cost analytics call. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over bags_get_token_claim_stats or other analytics siblings, nor mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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