info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It is transparent about what each action returns: platform overview, tokenomics details, fee structure, and contract addresses. It also clarifies scope (e.g., 'chain info' for contracts). The read-only nature is implicit in 'Get information'. It does not disclose response format or if data is static, but for a simple info tool this is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose in one sentence, then uses a clean bulleted list for actions. There is no redundant filler, and every sentence contributes value. The structure makes the information easily scannable.

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 simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers all possible action values and explains what each returns. Sibling tool differentiation is not explicitly addressed, but the description's clarity makes it sufficient for a basic informational tool. No additional context is necessary.

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 documents the single 'action' parameter with enum values and descriptions. The tool description adds further detail beyond the schema, such as 'how it works and why use it' for platform, 'vesting' for tokenomics, 'for launching and trading' for fees, and 'chain info' for contracts. This enhances understanding of the parameter values beyond the schema's brief labels.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get information about Vibecoins' and enumerates four specific action types (platform, tokenomics, fees, contracts). This is a specific verb+resource combination. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'my-fees' or 'wallet', but the scope (general info vs personal data) is reasonably implied by the content.

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or note that this tool is for general information while other siblings (e.g., 'my-fees', 'vesting') are user-specific. The action list implies usage, but there is no explicit comparison or decision guidance.

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