erc20_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose cost ($0.0045 USDC per call), latency (p99 2000ms), and a real behavioral trait (verifies the target is a contract). It omits error/failure behavior when the address is not a contract, so it falls short of 5.

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 block: purpose, then params, then cost/latency. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant, though the embedded 'Params:' recital is somewhat schema-repetitive.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and covering all three parameters plus cost and latency. Only failure semantics and multi-chain caveats are 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?

Schema coverage is 67% and the description mostly restates the schema (token required, chain default 'base', holder optional). It adds no format or semantics beyond the enum/default/pattern already present, so it sits at the baseline for a well-covered 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read an ERC20 token contract') and enumerates exactly what it returns (name, symbol, decimals, total supply, optional holder balance), which implicitly separates it from evm_balance or erc20_transfers. It never names a sibling tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 reading-metadata use case and notes the address is contract-verified, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not route the agent away from overlapping siblings like evm_balance, erc20_transfers, or token_security. Usage is left to inference.

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