loot_list_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states a prerequisite ('Needs LOOT_API_URL') and implies a read-only 'Discover' action, but it does not confirm the operation is non-destructive, describe the response format, mention pagination, or disclose any side effects. The disclosure is minimal and insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists filters and options, then the prerequisite. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient and scannable.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema. The description fails to mention the return structure, pagination behavior, or how 'limit' controls output. It also omits details on sort_order and does not explain the full set of sort_by options. For a discovery tool, this leaves significant gaps in what an agent needs to call it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'filter' parameter by listing enum values and clarifying 'bonding (pre-graduation)', and it mentions 'Optional search and sorting.' However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter, the meaning of 'sort_by' values (marketCap, volume, etc.), or the 'sort_order' options. Only partial parameter semantics are provided.

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 action ('Discover LOOT tokens') and resource ('from the platform feed'). It lists filters and mentions search/sorting, which is specific enough to distinguish it from action-oriented siblings like loot_buy or loot_sell. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other list-like tools (e.g., loot_status), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 a common use case (listing tokens) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or say 'use this when you need a list of tokens' or refer to sibling tools. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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