haiku_get_tokens

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns token IIDs, symbols, names, prices, and chain information, and explains the IID format. However, it doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or any side effects.

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 with 4 sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence adds value. Could be slightly shorter by removing redundant 'Use the IID format' since schema already describes it, but still 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?

Given the tool has 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains purpose, return data, and usage guidance. The context signals show low complexity, and the description is sufficient for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters having detailed descriptions. The description adds context beyond schema by listing token types and explaining IID format. The enum values are also clarified in description, but schema already covers them.

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 tool retrieves supported tokens and DeFi positions for trading, listing specific types like vanilla tokens, Aave collateral/debt, yield vaults, and LP tokens. This differentiates it from siblings like haiku_get_balances (balances) and haiku_analyze_portfolio (portfolio analysis) by focusing on supported token metadata.

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 explains when to use category filter and gives an example ('collateral' for Aave aTokens). It also instructs to use IID format in other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like haiku_get_balances for balances.

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