explorer_get_tokens_by_address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it includes 'balances and market data' but does not disclose pagination behavior, whether zero balances are included, or how 'market data' is defined. With annotations covering the read-only nature, the description provides minimal additional behavioral context.

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, compact sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and scope. There is no redundancy or filler. It is efficiently front-loaded with the verb 'List' and clearly conveys the purpose.

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 list tool with well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys that the response includes token holdings, balances, and market data. However, it does not mention pagination or the shape of each item (e.g., token address, symbol, market cap), which would be useful given the absence of an output schema. Still, it is reasonably complete for a straightforward list endpoint.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (chainId, address, page, pageSize) already described. The description does not add detail beyond the schema, except implying that the response contains token holdings and market data. Since the schema carries the parameter semantics, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'List all ERC-20 token holdings with balances and market data for an address.' It uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource (ERC-20 token holdings) and the target (address). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like explorer_get_historical_balance or market_get_token_price by including both holdings and market 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?

The description implies usage: to get all token holdings and market data for an address. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., evm_get_token_balance for a single token or explorer_get_token_transfers for transfers). No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the strategic selection to the agent.

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