Ordiscan: listBRC20Tokens

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds context about browsing/discovery but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response size or rate limits. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no extraneous words. Every sentence serves a purpose: defining scope and usage. Highly 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?

For a simple listing tool with well-annotated safety and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. No output schema exists, but the description hints at the return (list of tokens). Missing output structure details are minor given the context.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with full descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('all BRC-20 tokens in the market'), clearly distinguishing the tool from sibling tools like getTopBRC20ByMarketCap (which lists top tokens by metric) and balance-checking tools.

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 tells when to use ('when user wants to see available tokens') and when not ('NOT for checking their personal balance'), providing clear context. Lacks explicit naming of alternative tools for personal balance but the guidance is sufficient.

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