Comfy token list

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantive behavior: never-traded tokens report null market figures ('unknown is not zero') and the list omits test launches and reserved tickers while reporting the count in `hidden`. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs before interpreting results.

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 purpose is front-loaded, then useful caveats follow in two tight sentences. The market-field enumeration is somewhat dense but each clause carries information an agent needs to interpret the output.

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 correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the market fields and the `hidden` count, plus null-semantics. It could be slightly more explicit about the overall response shape (list vs. object), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is a single `limit` parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents its meaning and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline case.

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 verb and resource — 'List the newest launched tokens on comfy.fun (0G mainnet) with market fields' — and enumerates the market data returned. It also distinguishes itself from comfy_token, noting that hidden tokens are still readable there by address.

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 context for using this tool is clear (newest launches with market stats) and it explicitly points to comfy_token for the tokens excluded from the list. It doesn't explicitly contrast with comfy_search_tokens, so the alternative routing is only partial.

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