list_stock_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scanning nature and the uiMultiplier() filter, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or performance implications (e.g., scanning may be slow). The information is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 core purpose, and every word earns its place. No redundancies or fluff.

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 description lacks output hints (returns list of token objects? addresses?), and does not mention side effects or state changes. For a scanning tool of moderate simplicity, this is adequate but missing details that would fully inform an agent about what to expect.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context by explaining the scanning algorithm and that 'limit' controls max candidates to probe, but it does not elaborate further on how parameters interact or affect results. Baseline 3 since schema already defines parameters.

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 purpose: 'Find genuine Robinhood Stock Tokens by scanning explorer-indexed tokens and keeping only those implementing uiMultiplier().' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from a registry read by noting 'there is no on-chain enumeration, so this is a scan, not a registry read.'

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like list_tokens, stock_token_info, or verify_stock_token exist, but the description does not compare or contrast scenarios for choosing this scan over others.

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