netintel_token_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose useful traits: the data provenance split (supply 'from the chain itself' vs price/liquidity/volume from 'DEX data'), the supported chains, and the no-API-key requirement. It omits behavior for unknown/non-existent contracts, address format expectations, rate limits, and the description is visibly truncated ('identity read…'), leaving the last disclosure incomplete.

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 payload is front-loaded with the verb+resource before the em-dash field list, which is good, but the single over-long sentence crammed with em-dashes is hard to parse and ends in a dangling fragment ('identity read…'). The visible truncation means the definition is not structurally complete.

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 two-param tool with no annotations, no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description does compensate partially by enumerating the returned fields and the data sources. It still leaves gaps on error/edge behavior for invalid or non-existent contracts and on the chain parameter's default, and the truncated tail signals the definition was cut short.

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 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning. It does explain that 'address' is a token contract address and that 'chain' is constrained to Base or Ethereum, which is real added value for both params. However it never states the expected address format (e.g. 0x-prefixed), the casing rules, or which chain is the default when 'chain' is omitted.

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: 'Full profile for any ERC-20 token by contract address', and then enumerates exactly which data points come back (name, symbol, decimals, supply, price, liquidity, volume, holder count). No sibling in the list does per-token ERC-20 profiling, so an agent can route here without opening a schema.

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?

Usage context is implied through constraints — 'Base and Ethereum, no API key' tells the agent when the tool is viable — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing against nearby siblings like netintel_crypto_price, netintel_crypto_market or netintel_wallet_balance. The agent must infer that token-level DEX/on-chain profiling is what distinguishes this call.

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