Retrieve detailed SRC-20 token data by ticker, with optional holder statistics and transfer history.
Retrieve detailed information about a specific SRC-20 token by its ticker symbol
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tick | Yes | The ticker symbol of the SRC-20 token | |
| include_holders | No | Whether to include holder statistics | |
| include_transfers | No | Whether to include recent transfer data |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes beyond the parameters. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it effectively.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 the complexity of retrieving token information with optional parameters (include_holders, include_transfers) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, how the optional parameters affect the output, or any response format, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper usage.
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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the ticker symbol is the primary identifier, which is covered in the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('detailed information about a specific SRC-20 token'), specifying it's by ticker symbol. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_tokens' or 'get_collection', which might retrieve token information differently.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_tokens' or 'get_collection'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid ticker symbol, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.