search_tokens_by_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the one-line purpose: no return shape, no pagination/limit interaction, no indication whether results are ranked, and no note that this is a read-only lookup. The only behavioral hint is the implicit scoping to a single network.

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 efficient sentence with the network scoping front-loaded and no filler. It is concise but borders on under-specified rather than maximally useful.

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 simple read-only search with a fully documented schema and a required network param, the definition is minimally viable. It omits what results contain, how the optional query matches, and how it relates to the advanced search sibling, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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% with three params fully documented (limit with default/max, query for name/symbol, network with examples), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond restating the network scoping already in the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (search) and resource (tokens) with a scope qualifier (a specific blockchain network). It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling search_tokens_advanced, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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 instead of search_tokens_advanced, nor on prerequisites like knowing a valid network name (get_available_networks exists as a sibling but is not referenced). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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