get_token_approvals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verbs 'Get' and 'Shows' imply a read-only operation, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose network default behavior, pagination, response format, or any caveats about supported chains. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two sentences (20 words), front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and contains zero filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a simple three-parameter lookup tool, the description adequately conveys the core purpose, but it omits context that would help an agent, such as the default network (BSC), the optional token scoping, and what the response contains. With no output schema present, some return-value guidance would improve completeness.

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 the input schema already documents all three parameters (address, network, tokenAddresses) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('list of token spending approvals') and scope ('for an address'). The second sentence ('Shows which contracts can spend your tokens') adds interpretive clarity that helps distinguish this from more granular approval tools like check_token_allowance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings (e.g., check_token_allowance, get_approval_events, batch_check_allowances). The description only implies the use case ('Shows which contracts can spend your tokens') but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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