top_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the $0.025 per-call cost, accepted payment rails, no-key/no-sign-up auth model, the x402 endpoint, and critically that over MCP it returns the price and URL rather than the data. That last point is a non-obvious behavioral trait an agent must know before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the sibling routing, then payment details last. Three sentences with little waste, though the payment clause is dense and packs several facts into one run-on sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly enumerates the return fields (rank, symbol, name, liquidity, 24h change). Combined with the addressed n parameter, sibling routing, and payment/MCP behavior, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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?

The single parameter n has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates by stating the value semantics ('entries'), the range (3 to 25), and the default (8). It adds meaning beyond the bare min/max/default constraints, though it stops short of explaining ordering or truncation behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ranked list of X1 tokens by liquidity in XNT'), enumerates the returned fields, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the token_lookup sibling for single-token queries. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the single-token case to token_lookup, which is clear sibling guidance. However, it does not say when to prefer this over other market tools like volume_check or xnt_price, and the paid nature is disclosed as a fact rather than as a decision criterion.

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