Find Tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly signals a read-only discovery operation via 'Finds' and 'returns token details,' and explains the 'unknown/unshown' scope. It does not disclose edge cases like no results or pagination, but for a search tool this is adequate.

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 concise with a front-loaded verb and resource, followed by a single actionable usage instruction. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is complete for a search tool: it explains what it finds, when to use it, and what it returns. With no output schema, stating that it returns token details is sufficient. The schema covers parameter details, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond saying 'specified chain/network' and the general query/search purpose. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Finds') and resource ('unknown/unshown tokens on the specified chain/network'), and clarifies that it returns token details for transactional operations. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch-tokens, which likely handles known/shown 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 description provides an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Only use this tool when target/underlying token is not provided in the context / chat history yet.' This gives a clear contextual trigger and implies not to use it when the token is already known, though it does not name an alternative tool explicitly.

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