xflows_get_supported_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It simply states a read operation ('Get') without disclosing behavioral details such as return format, pagination, handling of missing chainId, or any limitations/errors. This is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. The appended '(section 3.2)' is somewhat cryptic and adds no functional value but does not significantly harm conciseness.

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 list-getter with one optional parameter, the description covers the basic purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not specify the return value or behavior, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 already fully documents the chainId parameter with a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's explanation, so the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('tokens supported by XFlows') with a scope ('for a specific chain'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xflows_get_supported_chains, which retrieves chains, not tokens.

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 hints at usage context by mentioning 'for a specific chain', implying a chainId filter, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This falls short of clear guidance.

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