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 mentions 'Live' data but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The output is partially described (price, liquidity, market cap) but no return structure or error behavior is disclosed.

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, concise sentence that directly states the core value proposition. No redundant words or fluff; it earns its place.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is insufficient given the lack of annotations and a non-informative schema. It does not explain the input structure, output format, or any constraints, and there is no output schema to fill the gap. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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 input schema is effectively useless (a free-form 'args' object with no property details) and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only says 'for a mint', implying a mint identifier is needed, but it does not specify the parameter name, format, or how to pass the value. This leaves the agent to infer the correct invocation.

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 accurately states the tool's purpose: it retrieves live price, liquidity, and market cap for a mint. The verb is implied by the name and the resource is a specific crypto asset (mint), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_quote (swap pricing) or check_token_safety (security analysis).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. While the purpose implies use when token market data is needed, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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