Search Comfy tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: case-insensitivity, substring matching semantics, use of the public indexer filter, and that results report scanned rows, hidden tokens and truncation.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core operation front-loaded and the reporting behavior trailing. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully pre-announces the notable return signals (scanned matching rows, hidden tokens, truncation), which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. The only gap is the undocumented limit parameter and its truncation interaction.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies what the query matches against (name, symbol or address, case-insensitive), which is valuable, but says nothing about the limit parameter, its default of 25 or the cap of 50.

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?

States a specific operation (case-insensitive substring search) over specific fields (name, symbol, address) and anchors scope to the same Infinity market as comfy_tokens. An agent can distinguish it from comfy_tokens and comfy_token without opening any schema.

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 description makes clear this is the search-by-text path and contrasts implicitly with comfy_tokens (the same dataset, unfiltered listing). It does not name comfy_token as the alternative for exact single-token lookup or state when not to search, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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