fetch

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds pricing, content shape, and the prerequisite that the id must come from `search`. It does not claim any write or side effect, consistent with annotations. It enriches the behavioral profile without contradiction.

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?

Two dense but efficient sentences. The first front-loads price and purpose, then enumerates the payload. The second ties the id source and disqualifies other clients. Every word adds value, no repetition or fluff.

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 a single required parameter, a read-only annotation, and an existing output schema, the description covers the output contents, the input source, the price, and the sibling distinction. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly; nothing important is missing.

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 documents the single `id` parameter completely (100% coverage). The description adds the source of the id ('from search') and the price, but these are situational rather than parameter-meaning. No new parameter behavior is disclosed beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('fetch'), a resource ('one token as one document'), and enumerates the contents (verdict, hit rate, holders, sellability). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling token_report by Positioning itself as the 'ChatGPT entry point' and noting the same endpoint and price.

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?

It explicitly says the id comes from `search` and that other clients should call token_report instead, giving a concrete input source and a clear differentiation from the sibling. However, it doesn't provide a broader decision rule beyond 'I am ChatGPT, use this' — it assumes the agent knows when it is the ChatGPT entry point.

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