searchCryptoByNameSearch for cryptocurrencies by name or symbol. Use this to find the correct token ID before getting detailed market data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (name or symbol) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral nuance that it resolves names/symbols to token IDs, but doesn't detail behaviors like fuzzy matching, result limits, or case sensitivity. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 precise sentences, immediately stating the action and the recommended usage. No redundant words or repetition of annotations. Efficient and well-structured.
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 single-parameter search tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, usage, and implies output (token ID). Minor gap: no information about result set size or exact return format, but not critical for this tool's simplicity.
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% and the query parameter description already states 'Search query (name or symbol)'. The description reiterates this but doesn't add extra details like required format, length, or examples. Baseline of 3 stands as schema does the heavy lifting.
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 searches for cryptocurrencies by name or symbol, with a specific resource and action. It also distinguishes itself from other tools by explicitly stating its role: 'find the correct token ID before getting detailed market data.'
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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to find the correct token ID before getting detailed market data.' This implies a workflow and distinguishes from data-gathering tools. It doesn't list alternatives or exclusions but is clear about the intended scenario.
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.