Ordiscan: listBRC20Tokens

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the market-wide scope (as opposed to user-specific), which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it does not elaborate on pagination behavior or return format, so the added value beyond annotations is moderate.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance. There is zero filler or redundant content, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool, the schema fully documents parameters, and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it. It implies a list return ('List all BRC-20 tokens') and clarifies the market scope. The absence of an output schema is not a major gap because the return type is obvious from the verb 'List'.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both 'page' and 'sort'. The description itself adds no parameter-specific details, so it does not exceed the baseline. The schema carries the full load for parameter semantics.

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 function with a specific verb ('List'), resource ('BRC-20 tokens'), and scope ('all in the market'). It distinguishes itself from personal balance checks, which is a common confusion point, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools for other discovery methods.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use directive: 'Use this when user wants to see available tokens' and an explicit exclusion ('NOT for checking their personal balance'). This gives the agent actionable guidance, though it does not name alternative tools like getTopBRC20ByMarketCap or searchCryptoByName for other discovery scenarios.

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