thryx_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'No key required' (an access condition) and lists output fields. However, it does not discuss rate limits, error handling, or confirm read-only semantics beyond the implied 'info' context, leaving some gaps.

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, information-dense sentence. It avoids redundancy and front-loads the core purpose, then lists the specific data fields, all without unnecessary words.

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 low-complexity tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main need: what data is returned and that no key is needed. It lacks explicit response structure or error behavior, but the provided field list gives a good sense of the output, making it sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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 fully describes the single 'token' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but earns no extra credit.

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 tool provides 'Detailed info for a single token' and enumerates the exact fields returned (price, supply, raised, fees, graduation status, V4-native flag, healthScore). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like thryx_safety_score or thryx_rug_check, making the purpose 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 implies usage when comprehensive token details are needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or point to alternatives. The only usage guideline is 'No key required', which is more about access than tool selection.

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