Search Onchain Diary articles and glossary terms (Web3 security education, EN/ZH). Returns the top matches with title, URL and short description. Use this first to discover relevant content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Optional: restrict results to one language | |
| type | No | Optional: restrict results to one content type | |
| query | Yes | Search keywords, e.g. "wallet drainer", "地址投毒", "permit2 phishing" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a solid job: it states that the tool returns top matches with title, URL, and short description. It also adds useful context about the content domain and language coverage that goes beyond the schema.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states what the tool searches, the second describes the return format, and the third gives usage priority. It is front-loaded and free of 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?
For a simple search tool with three documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the resource, the return fields, and the intended first-use role. It could add explicit notes about limits (e.g., 'top' count) but nothing critical is missing.
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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, but that is acceptable because the schema itself includes examples and clear descriptions.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search Onchain Diary articles and glossary terms'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also names the content covered (Web3 security education, EN/ZH) and the return shape, which helps differentiate it from the sibling tools (list_content, read_article, read_glossary).
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 phrase 'Use this first to discover relevant content' gives clear strategic guidance for when this tool is appropriate in a workflow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the intent is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.
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.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: listing content, reading an article, reading a glossary term, and searching across content. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, even for similar operations like reading an article vs. reading a glossary.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_content, read_article, read_glossary, search). While 'search' is a single verb, it is a common exception and the overall pattern is uniform and predictable.
Four tools is a well-scoped set for a content access server. Each tool covers a distinct access mode (list, read, search) without redundant or unnecessary additions, making the surface compact yet functional.
The tool surface fully covers the server's purpose: browsing the table of contents, retrieving articles and glossary terms, and searching across both languages. There are no obvious gaps in the core workflow of discovery and reading.