get_token_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: proxy detection and no wallet/balance needed. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences covering core function, proxy detection, and usage recommendation. No fluff, front-loaded purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should clarify return values. It mentions metadata and proxy detection but lacks explicit output format or error cases. Still fairly complete for a metadata fetch tool given annotations.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It implies address is token address and chain is EVM chain, but doesn't describe format or enum values beyond what property names suggest. Adequate but not detailed.

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 it fetches ERC-20 metadata (symbol, name, decimals) for a token address on EVM chains, and also detects proxies. It distinguishes from sibling simulate_transaction by recommending this tool over raw calls.

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?

Explicitly says 'no wallet or balance required' and 'Prefer this over running raw simulate_transaction calls', providing clear when-to-use guidance and an alternative to avoid.

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