base: baseFindClankerTokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing return fields, the ERC20 nature of the tokens, and pointing to baseSwap for trades. It doesn't mention pagination details but provides useful behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return values, then usage and alternative tool. Every sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy. Highly concise and effectively structured.

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 read-only search tool with rich annotations, the description covers the main capabilities (find, search, sort, return metrics) and the alternative swap tool. It lacks explanation for some parameters (includeUser/includeMarket) and pagination, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to use it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'q' parameter (search by name/symbol) and 'sortBy' (market-cap or created-at), but doesn't clarify 'limit', 'offset', 'includeUser', 'includeMarket', or 'chainId'. While the enum for 'sortBy' is self-evident, several parameters remain unexplained, leaving a significant gap.

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 it 'Find meme tokens on Base via Clanker' and specifies the return fields (price, market cap, 24h volume, price changes). It distinguishes from siblings like hederaFindMemeCoins (different chain) and baseSwapQuote by explicitly noting that for buying/selling, one should use baseSwap.

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?

Explicitly says to use baseSwap for buy/sell, naming the alternative tool. Also provides usage instructions: 'Use q param to search by name/symbol' and 'Sort by market-cap or created-at.' This gives clear context on when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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