get_listings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing a cost of $0.001 USDC/query and a maximum return of 100 tokens ranked by market cap. It does not mention pagination or error conditions, but the disclosed cost and output limit go beyond what the schema offers, earning a 4.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds information: what it returns, how many, and the cost. There is no filler or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.

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 presence of an output schema covers return values, and the tool is simple with two optional parameters. However, the lack of parameter explanations and usage guidance leaves gaps for correctly invoking the tool with the right 'limit' and 'start' values. It is adequate for a listing tool but not fully complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the 'limit' or 'start' parameters. Even the 'up to 100 tokens' mention is not explicitly tied to the 'limit' parameter, and 'start' is completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('top token listings by market cap'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_token or get_trending by specifying the ranking criterion (market cap). The added detail about returning up to 100 tokens reinforces the purpose.

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 purpose statement implies a use case (retrieving top tokens by market cap), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_token or get_trending. There is no when-not-to-use information or comparison to siblings, so it stays at an implied level.

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