getSorobanTokenInfo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the configuration prerequisite and the conditional balance-fetching behavior when acountId is provided. But it does not explain what happens if SOROBAN_RPC_URL is absent, error behavior, or that it is a read-only network call, though 'Get' implies a read.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides the essential prerequisite. Every sentence carries useful information and the structure is optimal for quick scanning.

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 low-complexity tool with two params and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the return fields (symbol, name, decimals), explains the optional balance behavior, and states the runtime requirement. It omits minor details like error cases or balance units, but these are not critical for an agent to call 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 describes both parameters precisely, including formats and optionality, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds limited semantic value beyond that, merely restating the balance behavior already noted in acountId's description. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('SEP-41 Soroban token metadata'), and lists the exact fields (symbol, name, decimals). It also clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getAccount or getAssetInfo by its explicit focus on Soroban tokens, so an agent can identify it unambiguously.

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 implies usage when SEP-41 Soroban token metadata or a balance is needed, and it gives a clear prerequisite ('Requires SOROBAN_RPC_URL to be configured'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as getAssetInfo for non-Soroban assets, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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