Token profile and price

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses an important operational detail: the call costs $0.03 in USDC on Base via protocol x402. This is non-obvious and valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool. It does not contradict the 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?

Three short sentences each add distinct value: the returned fields, the primary use case, and the cost/payment mechanism. The description is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and explaining the paid nature of the call. It is slightly unclear about the price currency of the token itself, but for a simple token-profile tool the information is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the description does not need to repeat parameter semantics. It adds no input-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description identifies the resource and what is returned: token name, symbol, decimals, supply, contract address, and price per token. It also gives a concrete purpose: confirming that an address is a real contract and what it represents. However, it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from the sibling 'precio', which likely overlaps on price data.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use it to confirm that an address is a real contract and what it represents.' This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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