list_known_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only list operation without stating it explicitly. The behavior is transparent enough for an agent to understand it is non-destructive and returns a list of token data.

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 sentence of 9 words, with no filler. Every word adds value: verb, scope ('built-in known'), resource ('token symbols and their mint addresses').

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 covers the tool's purpose and output (list of symbols and addresses). Without an output schema, it does not detail the exact structure, but it is sufficient for a simple list tool. Could be slightly more explicit about return format, but adequate given sibling 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (no properties). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none.

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 lists all built-in known token symbols and mint addresses. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('known tokens'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform actions like burn, create, or transfer tokens.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, since it is the only list tool among siblings and the action is clear, usage is implied. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information is given.

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