get_top_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether results are cached. Minimal transparency beyond the name.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to under-specification elsewhere.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, three undocumented parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. An agent cannot determine how to paginate, filter by chain, or set limits without additional information.

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 0% and the description adds no information about the three parameters (page, chain, limit). It does not explain pagination, chain filtering, result limits, or how the ranking criteria map to inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get top tokens,' and adds ranking criteria ('by volume / market cap'). This is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_token_details or get_newest_tokens, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify which ranking is default.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_trending_tokens, get_newest_tokens, or get_bigbuys. The description only states what it returns, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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