get_token_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation by stating it 'Gets' information rather than mutating state. However, it doesn't disclose potential failure modes (e.g., behavior on non-ERC-20 or invalid addresses), rate limits, or what happens with non-standard ERC-20s.

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, tightly-written sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists the concrete return fields, and scopes the tool to a specific network. Every word earns its place; zero wasted verbiage.

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 simple single-parameter metadata lookup tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context—scoping to Base, enumerating return fields, and clarifying it works with any ERC-20. A brief note on network specification or error handling would push it to 5, but it's largely complete for this straightforward use case.

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 100% and there's only a single parameter (address) with a clear schema description ('Token contract address'). The description adds the context that the address must be an ERC-20 token contract on Base, but since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('detailed ERC-20 token information on Base') and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, symbol, decimals, total supply). It unambiguously distinguishes itself from siblings like get_base_gas_price, get_tx_status, and check_allowance by focusing on token metadata.

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 explicitly states it works with 'any ERC-20 token contract address,' giving clear context on when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among siblings (e.g., for balance checks use check_balances, for allowances use check_allowance), so exclusions are implied rather than stated.

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