Token List

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations, the description reveals concrete behavior: default status hides inactive tokens, 'ALL' disables filtering, results are alphabetical and capped at limit, and the response shape is {count, total_matching, tokens}. It also clarifies the meaning of tradable and multiplier, going well beyond annotations.

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 information-dense but every phrase earns its place: scope, fields, filtering behavior, ordering, limit cap, response shape, and downstream use are all included. The example is compact and useful, and there is no filler.

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?

The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: it covers filtering, defaults, output structure, ordering, and how the results should be used downstream. With an output schema and read-only annotations present, there are no significant missing details that would prevent correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for the status parameter by defining ACTIVE, other status short names, and ALL. The limit parameter is only implied by 'capped at limit' and the example, leaving its default and maximum to the schema/default value without explicit semantic explanation.

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 that this lists tokenized equities on Robinhood Chain, one row per token, and enumerates the fields returned. It also differentiates itself by explicitly positioning it as the entry point for valid symbols to feed into quote/token_detail, so it is easy to distinguish from siblings.

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?

It explicitly says 'Start here for valid symbols' and directs the agent to feed results into quote/token_detail, giving clear when-to-use guidance. It explains status filtering and defaults, though it could have more explicitly named alternatives like search for name-based lookups.

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