bags_get_token_creators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries disclosure burden, and it does state the call is read-only and free, addressing side effects and cost. It also hints at response semantics by listing the fields returned. It stops short of disclosing auth requirements, rate limits, or error 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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the core operation, then the details, and closes with the access tier. No filler or redundant restating of parameter names.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema getter, the description covers the operation, the return data, and the access/safety profile. It is slightly incomplete around authentication prerequisites and sibling differentiation, but the low complexity keeps these gaps minor.

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% and the single tokenMint parameter is already described as 'The token mint address to look up creators for'. The description only refers to 'a token' generically and adds no mint-format or usage detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('royalty split for a token'), and enumerates the returned data (creators, wallet, social provider, share in basis points). The fee-sharing focus helps distinguish it from the sibling bags_get_creators even without an explicit contrast.

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?

Apart from labeling the call 'free read-only tier', the description offers no guidance about when to prefer this tool over the sibling creator/analytics tools. There is no when/when-not statement or explicit alternative routing.

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