fomo_filter_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'batch token market data' with no details on response format, error handling, rate limits, order of results, or whether it returns a list of objects for the requested IDs. The behavior of the tool is almost entirely unspecified, leaving an agent unable to predict the outcome.

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 that is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the main action ('batch token market data'), but it omits essential context that would justify its brevity. The lack of structure (no separation of purpose, usage, output) and the extremely limited detail make it under-described rather than appropriately concise.

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?

Given that the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least specify what data is returned (e.g., price, volume, market cap) and any batch behavior (limits, ordering). It provides none of this. The tool likely returns a sizable payload (array of market data objects), but an agent cannot infer the structure or content. The description is completely inadequate for effective usage.

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 schema exposes one parameter, 'tokenIds', an array of strings. The description's phrase 'by token id' confirms these are token identifiers, but it does not clarify what format they should take (e.g., contract address, internal ID, base58 string) or any constraints (min/max array length). With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only offers a minimal hint about the parameter's role.

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 verb ('get') and resource ('token market data') and implies a batch operation, which distinguishes it from single-token tools in the sibling list. However, 'market data' is vague—it does not specify whether it returns price, volume, liquidity, or other metrics. It is clear enough to know it fetches data for multiple tokens, but not precise enough to fully differentiate from tools like fomo_token_details or fomo_trading_activity without inspecting schemas.

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 does not mention scenarios, limitations, or exclusions. An agent would have no idea whether to prefer this over fomo_token_details for single-token queries or fomo_trading_activity for trade history, and it does not state what 'market data' encompasses.

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