get_top_tokens

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no chain scoping, no indication of how results are ranked or how many are returned.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail scored 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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set of token-listing tools, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell which ranking is used, whether results are paginated, or how to scope by chain.

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 names none of the three parameters (page, chain, limit). The 'chain' parameter in particular is never hinted at, so an agent has no guidance that results can be scoped to a specific chain.

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 gives a verb and resource ('Get top tokens') and names two possible ranking criteria, but leaves it ambiguous which one actually governs the ordering. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_trending_tokens or get_newest_tokens, which an agent would need to choose between.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related siblings (get_trending_tokens, get_newest_tokens, get_token_trades). The agent must infer from the name alone when this list is the right one.

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