get_dispensers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the default status ('open'), but this is also present in the schema (status default '0'). It does not elaborate on pagination behavior, potential large result sets (despite openWorldHint), or return format, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with a parenthetical. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and contains zero filler words. This level of conciseness is appropriate for a simple, well-named read-only tool.

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 4 optional but self-explanatory parameters and annotations cover safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the tool's scope: does it return all dispensers globally or is it filtered by something? It also does not mention pagination behavior or describe the response structure (no output schema). For a list endpoint, the description could provide more guidance on when to use this vs. the more specific sibling tools.

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 each parameter (limit, cursor, offset, status) having a description. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; the '(default: open)' note duplicates the schema's status default. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves Counterparty dispensers, with the verb 'Get' and resource 'dispensers'. It distinguishes from singular 'get_dispenser' by using plural and notes the default status of 'open'. However, it does not explicitly mention listing all dispensers or differentiate from other dispenser-related list tools like get_address_dispensers or get_dispensers_by_asset.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The parenthetical '(default: open)' hints at status filtering but does not clarify whether this is the general list endpoint for all dispensers or when to prefer the more specific variants. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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