top_boosted_tokens

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'currently' and 'top-boosted' but does not explain ordering, pagination, data format, or any assumed read-only nature. The agent is left without critical behavioral context.

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 redundant words. It earns a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but omits details about return shape, ordering, or limits. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps, especially since no output schema exists to clarify the response.

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, so the input schema is trivially complete. Per rubric, with 0 params the baseline is 4; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning but also does not need to.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('top-boosted tokens on DexScreener'), with specific qualifiers ('currently', 'most promoted / trending'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like latest_token_profiles by emphasizing trending/promoted status rather than recency.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_pairs or latest_token_profiles. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or complementary tools, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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