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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small behavioral detail—that tokens are 'actively promoted on DEX Screener'—which clarifies the scope but not much else. It does not mention response structure, pagination, or ordering, though the output schema may cover that.

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, short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key information (what tokens are returned). Every word earns its place.

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 read-only, parameter-less listing tool with an output schema available, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what it returns (promoted tokens on DEX Screener). It could add a note about why this differs from sibling tools, but given the simple nature and existing annotations, this is acceptable.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (with an empty properties object). The baseline for no parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not add any that could conflict. It correctly stays silent on parameters.

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 states the resource ('tokens') and the selection criterion ('actively promoted on DEX Screener'), which conveys a clear purpose. However, it does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'lists' or 'retrieves'), and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like token_boosts_top or latest_token_profiles, which likely return similar 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context for when this is the right choice, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. An agent cannot determine if this is preferable to token_boosts_top or latest_token_profiles without additional inference.

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