get_erc20_token_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what data is returned, whether it requires any special network handling, or any potential error conditions. The phrase 'Get ERC20 token information' is too vague to convey any meaningful behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words, making it efficient. However, it is arguably too terse to be useful, bordering on under-specification rather than being a well-structured description. It earns a 4 for brevity but lacks substantive content.

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 is incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain what information is returned, the supported networks, or the impact of the optional 'network' parameter. The schema covers parameter formats, but the description fails to provide the necessary context about the tool's behavior and return value.

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% as both 'network' and 'tokenAddress' have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 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 ERC20 token information using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ERC20 token information'). However, it does not specify what exact information is returned (e.g., name, symbol, decimals, total supply) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like get_token_supply_info or get_erc20_balance.

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 instead of alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description simply states the action without any context about how it fits among the many other token-related tools.

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