get_zora_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, yet it discloses nothing beyond 'List' — no pagination behavior, no default chain, no auth requirements, no result shape. For a tool with three parameters and zero structured behavioral hints, this is a critical gap.

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 waste and the purpose front-loaded. However, the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication of necessary detail.

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, and three undocumented parameters, the description leaves far too much unspecified for correct invocation. The one-line description is not sufficient for a listing tool with paging and chain-selection parameters.

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 mentions none of the three parameters (page, chain, limit). It adds no meaning about pagination semantics, accepted chain formats (string or number), or default limits, so the agent cannot use the parameters correctly.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Zora-protocol tokens'), so the agent knows it is a read/listing operation scoped to Zora tokens. It does not differentiate itself from sibling listing tools such as get_newest_tokens, get_top_tokens, or get_trending_tokens, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling token-listing tools, and no mention of prerequisites or context. The agent must guess based on the name alone.

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