listBRC20TokensList all BRC-20 tokens in the market for discovery and browsing. Use this when user wants to see available tokens, NOT for checking their personal balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-indexed page for paginating the BRC-20 token list. | |
| sort | Yes | Sort order: 'newest' for most recent deploys first, 'oldest' for chronological. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the market-wide scope (as opposed to user-specific), which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it does not elaborate on pagination behavior or return format, so the added value beyond annotations is moderate.
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: the first states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance. There is zero filler or redundant content, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 simple nature of the tool, the schema fully documents parameters, and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it. It implies a list return ('List all BRC-20 tokens') and clarifies the market scope. The absence of an output schema is not a major gap because the return type is obvious from the verb 'List'.
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 100% with clear descriptions for both 'page' and 'sort'. The description itself adds no parameter-specific details, so it does not exceed the baseline. The schema carries the full load for parameter 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 tool's function with a specific verb ('List'), resource ('BRC-20 tokens'), and scope ('all in the market'). It distinguishes itself from personal balance checks, which is a common confusion point, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools for other discovery methods.
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?
Provides a clear when-to-use directive: 'Use this when user wants to see available tokens' and an explicit exclusion ('NOT for checking their personal balance'). This gives the agent actionable guidance, though it does not name alternative tools like getTopBRC20ByMarketCap or searchCryptoByName for other discovery scenarios.
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.