fomo_supported_transfer_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 disclosing behavior, but it only states a static property ('Tokens supported for transfers') with no indication of side effects, output nature, or operational behavior. It does not even explicitly say whether calling the tool returns a list or performs a check. This is insufficient for a zero-annotation tool.

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 extremely short at four words, which is suitably concise for a zero-parameter tool. However, it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, and it largely duplicates the tool name, slightly reducing its structural value. It is not bloated, so it earns a 4.

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 tool has no parameters, making invocation trivial, but there is no output schema and no description of what the returned data looks like. Given the large sibling set, an agent cannot infer whether this returns a static list, a set of token details, or something else. The description is too minimal to be contextually complete for an agent that needs to interpret results.

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 input schema is empty, so there are zero parameters to describe. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, but no parameter documentation is needed because none exist.

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 'Tokens supported for transfers' is a noun phrase without a verb, so the agent cannot tell whether the tool lists tokens, validates support, or retrieves a configuration. It essentially paraphrases the tool name (supported_transfer_tokens), making it close to a tautology. It also does not distinguish this from siblings like fomo_transfers_with or fomo_token_allow_list.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fomo_token_allow_list, fomo_verified_tokens, or fomo_transfers_with. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent receives zero guidance on selecting this over sibling tools.

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