Get Token Info

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

Annotations already convey read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds the return fields, which provides some behavioral context (no mutations), but does not disclose any additional traits like rate limits or authentication needs. It adds marginal value beyond annotations.

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 sentence that conveys the purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and lists specifics without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given low complexity (1 parameter, simple output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return values. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return details. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke.

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% for the single parameter 'address', which is already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add new meaning to the parameter; it merely repeats the purpose of the tool. Baseline 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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details for a PulseChain token', listing specific fields (name, symbol, decimals, liquidity, volume, holder count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects like price or holders.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies it is for comprehensive token details, but does not state exclusions or provide when-not-to-use context. The phrase 'full details' is implicitly comparative but not actionable.

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