get_coins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions default values for 'coinType' and 'limit', but does not explain pagination behavior, error conditions, or what happens when no coins exist. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise, though it could include a brief note on usage or return format without becoming verbose.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is minimally complete for a simple getter. It does not explain return values, pagination, or error handling. While it covers the basic action, it leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 100%, so each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it restates the coin type constraint. With high coverage, a 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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'coin objects', and the constraints 'of a specific type' and 'owned by an address'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_balance' and 'get_owned_objects'.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving coins of a given type, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_balance' or 'get_all_balances'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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