Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the optional chain-filtering behavior, but does not disclose additional traits such as response format, pagination, or rate limits. It aligns with annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that starts with the action verb and contains no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and filter. A minor gap is the lack of differentiation from similarly named siblings, but given the low complexity, the description is largely complete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters ('format' and 'chainId'), so the description does not need to add much. It only restates the chain filter option, adding no new meaning 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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('tokens supported for money market lending/borrowing'), plus an optional filter ('by chain'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sodax_get_swap_tokens by focusing exclusively on money market tokens.

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 usage context is implied: use when you need tokens for money market lending/borrowing. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to choose this over similar tools like sodax_get_money_market_assets, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.