Search all crypto networks for tokens by name or symbol, and filter results by minimum 24h volume or liquidity to focus on qualifying assets.
Advanced token search across all networks with filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results (default: 20) | |
| query | Yes | Search query for token name or symbol | |
| min_volume | No | Minimum 24h volume in USD (optional) | |
| min_liquidity | No | Minimum liquidity in USD (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: no mention of result ranking/ordering, no pagination behavior with the limit parameter, no indication of how min_volume/min_liquidity interact with query, and no note on what a result contains. "Advanced" conveys no behavioral fact.
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 sentence with no wasted clauses, so it is compact. However, it is under-specified rather than concise — the words "advanced" and "with filters" occupy space without earning it, and there is no front-loaded statement of distinction.
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 4-parameter cross-network search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description says nothing about return values, ordering, empty-result behavior, or how filters combine. The schema covers inputs, but an agent still lacks the context needed to interpret or trust the results.
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 100%, so all four parameters (query, limit, min_volume, min_liquidity) are already documented in the schema. The description's only contribution is the vague word "filters," adding no syntax, format, or interaction semantics beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.
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 verb and resource ("token search") and a scope ("across all networks"), which does partially distinguish it from search_tokens_by_network. But "advanced" and "with filters" are filler that don't say what makes it advanced or which filters are available, so the core differentiator remains opaque.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the obvious sibling search_tokens_by_network is never named. The only implied routing signal is "across all networks," which an agent must infer selects this tool when no single network is targeted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.