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 full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Get') and names the upstream data source (KaiaScan api/v1/tokens/:contractAddress), which hints at freshness/provenance, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or error behavior. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the payload fields front-loaded. The trailing API endpoint citation is mild implementation detail that partially duplicates the stated purpose, keeping it just short of ideal.

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 output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields, compensating for the gap, and the read-only operation is simple enough that heavy behavioral detail isn't required. Only the absence of sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (network, contractAddress) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'by contract address' aligns with the required param but adds no format or network-selection detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (get fungible token metadata) and even enumerates the returned fields (name, symbol, decimals, total supply), so an agent knows exactly what it yields. The word 'fungible' implicitly separates it from get_nft_info, but no sibling is named for explicit differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives named, despite several adjacent siblings (get_account_tokens, get_token_holders, get_token_transfers) that an agent could confuse it with. Usage must be inferred entirely from the purpose statement.

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