Newest native assets/listings from the public explorer native API.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_new_tokens"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only hints that the source is a 'public' API (implying no auth). It says nothing about ordering guarantees, freshness/recency window, pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no new assets exist. 'Newest' implies a sort order but never states it explicitly.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler and the key qualifier ('newest') front-loaded, which is good. However, the 'assets/listings' slash construction spends its few words on ambiguity rather than on information, so brevity comes at the cost of precision.
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 tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and an entirely undocumented parameter, the description should explain return shape and ordering at minimum. Instead it is one noun phrase, leaving the agent to guess at the entity type, recency semantics, and how `limit` behaves.
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% for the single `limit` parameter, and the description does not compensate: it never mentions the cap of 50, the minimum of 1, a default value, or that `limit` bounds the number of returned items. The only indirect signal is 'newest', which relates to ordering rather than the parameter itself.
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 indicates a retrieval of recent items from a 'public explorer native API', which loosely states a resource, but it never uses a verb and hedges with 'assets/listings', leaving the actual returned entity type ambiguous. It is distinguishable from siblings (invoices, balance, mempool, whales), so there is no confusion risk, but an agent cannot confidently say what a result record represents.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no preconditions. None of the sibling tools overlap meaningfully, which softens the cost, but the description gives the agent nothing about when this tool is the right choice or how it relates to other data-fetching siblings like get_balance or get_quote.
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.