getBizTokenList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to re-establish safety. It adds valuable behavioral guidance beyond annotations: the riskFlag warning ('Warn user if riskFlag=1 before proceeding to trade') and the return contract (DEX_<id> code, contract address, limits, payment tokens). This helps the agent use the result responsibly.

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 front-loaded with the core query and return fields, and the negative guidance is bolded for visibility. However, it is repetitive: the 'Agent hint' section largely restates the earlier 'AI agent should call this...' paragraph, and 'Do NOT use this for prices — use getBizTokenPriceList' appears twice. It is structured but not every sentence earns its place.

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-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the core decision criteria: what it returns, when to call it, which siblings to avoid, and how to handle riskFlag. It is missing explicit mapping for tokenTag enum values, but that gap is already reflected in parameter_semantics. Overall, an agent has enough context to invoke it 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 input schema has one tokenTag parameter with enum values 0, 1, 2, no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only says 'Use tokenTag to filter by category,' which adds the category concept but does not explain what each enum value means or how an agent should choose among them. The description only partially compensates for the missing schema detail.

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: 'Query on-chain tokens available for trading.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly listing what it returns (DEX token code, contract address, risk flag, order quantity limits, payment tokens) and naming the tools it is not: 'Do NOT use this endpoint to get token prices... use getBizTokenPriceList' and 'Do NOT use this to get user's holdings — use getAssetList.'

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 states when to call: 'AI agent should call this when user wants to discover tokens or expresses buy intent without specifying a token.' It gives positive direction for tokenTag filtering and provides clear negative exclusions with named alternatives for prices and holdings, so an agent can route correctly without guessing.

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