geckoterminal_get_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only operation by using 'get' and lists the types of data returned (price, market cap, metadata), but it does not elaborate on error cases, rate limits, or that it only queries a single token per call. This provides some transparency but not comprehensive 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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 tool has a simple two-parameter interface and no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It lists price, market cap, and metadata, but 'metadata' is vague and the structure of the response is not defined. For a single-token read operation, the information is adequate but lacks depth, leaving the agent uncertain about what other data might be included.

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 fully documents both parameters with descriptions ('Network ID' and 'Token contract address'), providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail about parameter formats or relationships beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves detailed token information including price, market cap, and metadata, which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes itself from multi-token or price-only tools by implying a full token detail view, though it does not explicitly reference sibling tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as geckoterminal_get_multi_tokens or market_coingecko_coin. The description lacks any mention of preferred use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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