dex_get_token_details

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 the output includes price, volume, and trading pairs, but it does not describe any limitations, data source specifics, failure behavior, or whether it is strictly read-only. For a tool with no explicit readOnly hint, this is insufficient.

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 front-loads the primary action and key output fields. There is no redundant or unnecessary text, making it appropriately sized and efficient.

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?

The description covers the core purpose but lacks context for a tool with no output schema and many siblings. It does not specify which networks are supported, whether data is sourced from a specific provider, or any caveats. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is minimally acceptable but leaves gaps.

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%, with both 'network' and 'tokenAddress' having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not elaborate on the parameters or their relationships.

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's function: 'Get detailed information about a token on a specific network including price, volume, and trading pairs.' This identifies the verb (get), the resource (token details), and specific aspects. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like dex_get_token_pools or get_erc20_token_info, so it lacks 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools for related use cases, such as getting token pool information or ERC-20 token info. This leaves the agent without context for selection among many similar siblings.

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