polygon_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pay-per-call cost ($0.02 USDC) and the live data categories, which are valuable behavioral traits. However, it does not explicitly state that the call is read-only, nor does it mention failure modes, rate limits, or the exact format of returned DEX pairs, leaving some gaps.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary output data (price, liquidity, volume, DEX pairs) before adding the onchain metadata and cost detail. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, the token scope, and the cost. It is not fully exhaustive—e.g., it doesn't specify the currency of price/liquidity or the number of DEX pairs—but it is sufficient for reliable invocation.

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 only parameter, 'token', as 'polygon ERC-20 token address' with 100% coverage. The description adds 'any' and repeats 'ERC-20', but no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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's function: it provides live price, liquidity, 24h volume, DEX pairs, and onchain name/symbol/decimals for any Polygon ERC-20 token. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polygon_health or polygon_balance, which cover different resource types. The specific verb 'Live price' implies fetching, and the resource is unambiguous.

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 a clear context for use: 'any polygon ERC-20 token' and the data it returns, which tells an agent when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives like base_token for Base chain or exclude non-ERC-20 assets, but the token-specific scope is enough to avoid common confusion.

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