pons_token_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature and the target chain, but says nothing about failure modes (invalid address, non-ERC20 contract), rate limits, or caching. Reasonable but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the verb, resource, chain, and return payload with no wasted words.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which compensates. However, it omits behavior on invalid or non-ERC20 addresses, which matters for calling it correctly against arbitrary input.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'token' as the contract address. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Read') plus resource ('on-chain ERC-20 metadata') and enumerates exactly what is returned (name, symbol, decimals, total supply), scoped to Robinhood Chain. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like pons_price or pons_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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (fetch metadata for a given token address), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as pons_price. Adequate but not routing.

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