getLPPayTokenList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently reflects a read-only query. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the response includes token details and the user's available balance, but it does not explain optional parameter behavior, filtering semantics, or response structure. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 information is front-loaded and the tool's purpose is immediately clear. However, the 'Agent hint' sentence largely repeats the previous sentence, and the middle usage sentence overlaps with it as well. The description is workable but includes avoidable redundancy.

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 conveys the tool's basic purpose and return intent, but with no output schema and no parameter documentation, it is incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to use chainCode or tokenAddress, what the response format is, or what 'available payment tokens' means in terms of filtering. For a simple read tool this is a significant omission.

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 0% and the description says nothing about chainCode or tokenAddress. Neither the schema nor the description gives any hint about what these parameters mean, how they affect results, or what valid values look like. This is a critical gap for a tool with two optional parameters.

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 specifies a distinct verb and resource: 'Query available payment tokens that can be used for LP staking.' It also states what is returned (token details and user's available balance), which distinguishes it from related siblings like getPayTokenList or getLPPayTokenPrice. The LP staking context is explicit and specific.

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 description gives clear usage context: 'Call this before staking to show users which tokens they can use.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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