pons_get_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the error condition NOT_A_LAUNCH for non-Pons-launched tokens and differentiates real vs phantom curve reserves, going well beyond the tool name. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but 'get' and 'Full state' plus the absence of side-effect warnings make the behavior reasonably transparent.

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?

A single information-dense sentence front-loads the core purpose and then lists the exact return areas and the key error. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the input domain, the major return sections, and the main error case. It does not spell out exact field names or types, but the listed categories are enough for an agent to decide whether this tool satisfies the user's request.

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 schema only describes tokenAddress as 'Token contract address,' and coverage is 100%. The description adds important semantic scope: the address must correspond to a token launched via the Pons factory, otherwise the call errors. That extra constraint justifies a score above the high-coverage baseline.

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?

States a specific retrieval action ('Full state of one Pons-launched token') and enumerates what is included: getLaunchedToken struct, ERC-20 metadata, curve reserves, graduation progress, snipe tax, and fees. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target single metrics or protocol-level overviews, even without naming them.

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 context is implied: it is the tool to call when you need the complete state of one Pons-launched token, and the NOT_A_LAUNCH error signals a validity constraint. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when to use a sibling tool instead, so the agent must infer routing from the field list.

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