fluid_get_all_ftokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool lists addresses and adds background on fTokens (ERC4626, lending pool share), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose response format, pagination, or any error/rate-limit behavior, which is a gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and scope, and the second adds useful domain context about fTokens. There is no redundant or filler content, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source for return semantics and safety. It mentions 'addresses' but not the exact structure (e.g., array of strings or objects). It also fails to differentiate from fluid_get_all_ftokens_details, and the rpc_url parameter use case is unexplained, making the tool insufficiently specified.

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 only 50%: 'chain' is described, but 'rpc_url' has no description. The description mentions 'on a chain' but does not explain the role of rpc_url or any optional parameters. It fails to compensate for the incomplete schema, leaving the agent uncertain about how to handle the rpc_url parameter.

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 a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'all fToken addresses' and scope 'on a chain'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool fluid_get_all_ftokens_details by specifying it returns addresses only, avoiding ambiguity.

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 siblings, such as fluid_get_all_ftokens_details. It does not state any exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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