get_token_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature implicitly through 'Get' and lists return fields, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a paid service beyond the pricing footnote. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist), but could provide more behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, price) and front-loaded the core functionality. The pricing footnote, while useful for cost awareness, slightly detracts from pure conciseness as it's not essential for tool selection. Overall, most sentences earn their place.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It explains both parameters thoroughly and states the return fields. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like error cases or rate limits to be fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It successfully does so by explaining both parameters: token_address ('The token contract address (0x...)') and chain ('Blockchain network. Options: ethereum, base, polygon, bsc, arbitrum, optimism'), including the enum values for chain. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Get metadata') and resource ('ERC-20 token'), listing the exact fields returned (name, symbol, decimals, total supply). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_token_price or get_token_sentiment by focusing on static token metadata rather than price, sentiment, or other dynamic 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 clear context for when to use this tool: to retrieve basic token information. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., get_token_price for price data, get_token_sentiment for sentiment analysis). The pricing information implies usage considerations but isn't a functional guideline.

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