getLatestRunesList the latest Rune tokens for market discovery and browsing. Use this when user wants to see new/trending Runes, NOT for checking their personal balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | Yes | ||
| after | No | ||
| before | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds the 'market discovery and browsing' framing but doesn't disclose pagination semantics, how 'latest' is defined (block height, timestamp), or any rate limit. It adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds usage guidance without any redundancy or fluff.
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?
With no output schema and 3 parameters, the description should clarify return format and pagination. It doesn't mention that 'after'/'before' are likely pagination cursors, nor does it describe the shape of the returned token list. An agent would struggle to know how to use the optional parameters effectively.
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. It hints at sorting via 'latest' and 'new/trending' but doesn't explain the required 'sort' parameter's behavior or the optional 'after'/'before' cursors. The enum values in the schema give some meaning, but no param-level guidance is provided.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List the latest Rune tokens') and clearly distinguishes this from personal-balance tools like getRuneBalances. It also differentiates from market-cap/volume ranking tools by focusing on temporal recency (latest/new/trending).
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?
It provides an explicit when-to-use ('when user wants to see new/trending Runes') and a when-not-to-use ('NOT for checking their personal balance'). However, it doesn't name a specific alternative tool (e.g., getRuneBalances), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 113 tools spanning many chains and asset classes, there is substantial overlap. For example, listPositions and getAllPositions appear to serve the same function, and there are many balance, token discovery, and collection data tools that differ mostly by chain or protocol, making misselection likely.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use camelCase with a verb (baseGetBalances, ethSwapQuote), but some use underscores (nansen_defi_portfolio), others are just bare nouns (wallet, rugcheck), and there are irregularities like solanaBalances instead of solanaGetBalances, plus hederaTokensSwapQuote vs. baseSwapQuote.
The server exposes 113 tools, far beyond the typical well-scoped set. This is an extreme mismatch with the apparent purpose of a wallet/swap server, making discovery and selection difficult for agents.
While the server offers extensive read-only data (balances, market data, NFTs, positions), it lacks core write operations: there is no actual swap execution or token transfer tool, and the referenced emblemCreateVault tool is missing. These are significant gaps that will prevent agents from completing common wallet actions.