tenero_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add two useful facts: it is backed by api.tenero.io and requires no authentication. It does not address rate limits, result caps, or error behavior, and the 'search pools and wallets' vs 'returns matching tokens' mismatch is an undisclosed scope detail.

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 core capability and return contents are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The 'Powered by the Tenero API (api.tenero.io)' clause and the appended tip are lower-value but short, so the definition stays efficient overall.

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 two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the essentials are covered, and the no-auth note is helpful. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about result volume, pagination or limits, and whether pools/wallets actually appear in the response.

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%: both `query` and `chain` are documented in-schema, including the accepted chain values and the 'stacks' default. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond restating the matchable query fields, so the baseline 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?

Uses a specific verb (search) plus concrete resource types (tokens, pools, wallets) and enumerates the matchable fields (name, symbol, contract address), which clearly separates it from lookup-style siblings like tenero_token_info. The only wrinkle is a scope drift: it claims to search pools and wallets but then says it 'Returns matching tokens,' leaving the result set slightly ambiguous.

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 query forms it accepts imply usage (discovery by name/symbol/address), but it never states when to pick this over tenero_token_info, tenero_market_summary, or stacks_market_search. The trailing tip routes to earning_opportunities, which is a cross-sell rather than a usage-selection rule.

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