get_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explicitly says what the tool returns (on-chain data including specific metrics), which is transparent about the read-only nature. It does not mention error cases or data freshness, but for a simple getter this is acceptable.

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: the first states the purpose and the second lists the return fields. It is front-loaded, efficient, and free of filler.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough by naming the key return fields. It does not cover error conditions or null cases, but these are not critical for a simple getter. It could mention when to use it relative to list_tokens, but the purpose is clear.

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 describes the mint parameter with a pattern and description, and coverage is 100%. The description adds context that the mint is a Solana address, but this is also in the schema, so it adds marginal value beyond the structured data.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed info about a specific DumbMoney reflection token'. It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_tokens (which presumably lists tokens) by focusing on a single token by mint address.

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 the tool is for retrieving details on one specific token when you have its mint address, which provides clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on 'specific' and the mint address makes the usage scenario obvious.

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