get_token_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only operation for token metadata discovery, but doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, or whether it requires authentication. The description adds useful context about the tool's purpose but lacks operational 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?

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states exactly what the tool does, and the second provides valuable usage context. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 read-only metadata tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what information is returned and when to use it. However, it doesn't describe the return format or structure, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. The description covers the essentials but leaves some implementation details unspecified.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (token address and chain ID). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining why chain_id matters or providing examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Get'), resource ('ERC-20 token'), and exact data returned ('name, symbol, and decimals'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_balance or get_token_balance which focus on different token attributes. The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('before transfers or approvals'), which helps differentiate it from other token-related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the context implies it's for metadata rather than balance or allowance checks.

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