nansen: nansen_token_screener

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about output type (trending tokens traded by smart money) but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination or rate limits beyond schema.

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 short sentences with no redundant words. Every word adds value.

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 screening tool with rich annotations and clear schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand the purpose and typical output. However, it could mention the nature of returned data (e.g., list of token addresses with scores).

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?

All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description only mentions 'volume, smart money activity, and chain' which loosely maps to parameters but adds no new meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'screen' and resource 'tokens' with specific criteria (volume, smart money activity, chain). While it distinguishes from many siblings, it could better differentiate from other token screening tools like 'birdeyeTrendingTokens' or 'getTrendingCoins'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies use for smart-money-focused screening but does not provide when-not or alternative tool names.

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