nansen_token_screenerScreen tokens by volume, smart money activity, and chain. Find trending tokens that smart money is trading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chains | Yes | Chains to screen across | |
| per_page | No | Results per page | |
| timeframe | No | Timeframe (e.g. 24h, 7d) | 24h |
| smart_money_only | No | Filter to show only smart money activity |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety context is covered. The description adds the screening dimensions (volume, smart money, chain) but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any edge cases. It provides some behavior context beyond annotations but not extensive.
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 action, and no redundant content. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and basic functionality.
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?
For a simple filtered-list tool with strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and a well-described schema, the description covers the core purpose. It slightly lacks explicit mention of output (e.g., 'returns a list of tokens') and clarification of 'volume', but these are minor given the annotations and schema.
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% (each parameter has a description), so baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning 'volume' and 'smart money activity', but 'volume' is not an actual parameter, which could confuse. It aligns with smart_money_only but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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 tool's function with a specific verb ('screen') and resource ('tokens'), and specifies the criteria (volume, smart money activity, chain). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nansen_smart_money_trades or nansen_smart_money_flows by focusing on token screening rather than specific transaction flows or holdings.
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 implies a use case ('Find trending tokens that smart money is trading') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks exclusions or references to related nansen tools, which is a missed opportunity given the number of nansen siblings.
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.