get_token_data_by_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get metadata' without specifying what metadata includes (e.g., name, symbol, decimals), or any error handling (e.g., behavior if contract not found). This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or limitations.

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 very concise (one sentence), which is good for brevity, but it lacks necessary detail. It front-loads the core action but omits important context, making it minimally adequate.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more complete context about what 'metadata' entails and any conditions (e.g., token existence). The current description is insufficient for an agent to confidently use this tool.

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% for the single parameter 'token_contract', described as 'Token contract name'. However, the tool description says 'by its contract address', introducing a contradiction. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, and the inconsistency undermines clarity.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('metadata for a token') with the method 'by its contract address'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_token_contract_by_symbol' and 'get_token_balances'. However, there is inconsistency: the tool description mentions 'contract address' while the parameter description says 'Token contract name', causing slight confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list is extensive but the description does not offer any context about when this tool is preferred, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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