fomo_token_feed

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or mutating, what side effects occur, what the return value is, or any other behavioral traits. The verb 'swap' hints at modification but lacks detail.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. A few words that convey no useful information do not 'earn their place'. The structure provides no front-loaded key details and fails to communicate anything actionable.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot infer the operation's meaning, parameter purposes, or expected results, making it impossible to call correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (tokenAddress, networkId, limit, threshold, excludeThesis). Even required parameters are undefined. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Swap feed for a token' is a fragment, not a clear statement of purpose. It uses a generic verb 'swap' and ambiguous nouns without specifying what operation is performed, what the feed is, or what the output is. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools that also deal with token data or feeds.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left without any basis to decide whether this tool applies.

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