Search for tokens by name, symbol, or contract address in the deBridge token database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Filter by token name (partial, case-insensitive) | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Token name, symbol, or contract address | |
| chainId | No | Filter by chain ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description states it searches the deBridge database but omits details like read-only nature, result format, pagination, or rate limits. Basic disclosure but incomplete.
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?
Single sentence with verb, resource, and searchable fields. No wasted words, 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?
Covers core purpose but lacks output format, pagination, and limitations. Adequate for a simple search but not fully complete given no output 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions. Description adds no additional meaning beyond them; baseline 3 for high coverage.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'search', resource 'tokens', and searchable fields (name, symbol, contract address). Distinguishes from sibling tools which deal with transactions and chains.
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?
Implied usage for token lookups; siblings are clearly different (transactions, instructions, chains). No explicit exclusions but context sufficiently separates.
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.
