get_tokens_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching data but fails to describe key behaviors: what specific data is returned (e.g., metrics, metadata), whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), pagination details (only hinted via 'limit' and 'page' in schema), rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter guidance). Given the complexity, it's appropriately concise without being under-specified.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is fetched (e.g., types of metrics), how results are structured, or how to interpret outputs. With no output schema and rich sibling tools, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'token_id or symbol (or both) along with optional date range' but not explaining other parameters like 'blockchain_address' or 'category'. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter interactions or semantics.

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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('token(s) data from Token Metrics API'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on general token data retrieval rather than specific metrics like price, OHLCV, or investor grades. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_tokens_quant_metrics' might overlap).

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 minimal guidance, mentioning 'Provide either token_id or symbol (or both) along with optional date range' but offers no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_tokens_price' or 'get_tokens_quant_metrics'. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names alone.

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