list_user_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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not state whether authentication is required, what happens when address is omitted, whether results are paginated, or what the return shape looks like. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 definition is short and front-loads the core operation in one clear sentence. The second sentence is a promotional next-step tip rather than invocation guidance, so it does not fully earn its place, but it does not harm clarity.

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 one-parameter listing tool with a fully described optional address parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about return format, wallet defaults, or behavioral constraints to be fully complete.

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%, so the schema already explains that address is optional and defaults to the configured wallet. The description says tokens are 'owned by an address' but adds no syntax, formatting, or parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'List all fungible tokens owned by an address.' This is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby token-related siblings such as get_token_balance, get_token_holders, or tenero_wallet_holdings, leaving the agent to infer the difference from scope 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 tool versus alternatives like get_token_balance or tenero_wallet_holdings. The only usage-related sentence is a follow-up tip to call earning_opportunities, which does not help the agent select or invoke list_user_tokens correctly.

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