ugf_get_registry

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions caching behavior via the invalidate_cache parameter, but does not explicitly declare the operation as read-only or describe any side effects, rate limits, or idempotency. This is adequate but could be improved.

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 consists of three concise sentences: purpose, return details, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 description fully covers what the tool returns (list of supported coins, chains, addresses) and when to use it. Despite lacking an output schema, the description compensates with explicit examples of return content, making it complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 100% coverage for its single parameter (invalidate_cache). The description adds value by explaining when to use the parameter ('force a fresh fetch from the gateway instead of using the SDK's local cache'), going beyond the schema's simple boolean description.

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 the action verb 'Fetch' and clearly names the resource as 'UGF's live payment token registry'. It provides specific examples of return values (USDC, $U, ETH) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ugf_quote and ugf_check_balance.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover viable routes without doing a quote.' This gives clear context, though it does not provide explicit exclusions or alternative tools.

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