getPayTokenList

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the mapping behavior ('Maps user input like "USDT" to "CEX_1"') and the type of data returned. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention authentication, rate limits, or pagination—acceptable given the read-only quiz nature.

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 first paragraph is clear and front-loaded, but the description is repetitive: the 'Agent hint' section largely duplicates the earlier sentences (usage, CEX_1 mapping, and the same two 'Do NOT' statements). This redundancy adds length without new information, making it less concise than it could be.

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?

While the use case and alternatives are well explained, the lack of parameter guidance prevents the description from being complete enough to invoke the tool correctly. Without knowing what chainCode/tokenAddress represent or how to fill them, the agent is left guessing despite the otherwise strong purpose clarity.

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 does not explain either parameter (chainCode, tokenAddress). It only implies a blockchain context via 'supported blockchain list,' but without clarifying what values chainCode/tokenAddress expect or how they relate to the output, the agent cannot reliably construct a valid request.

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 a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('available payment tokens for trading'), and enumerates the returned data (token symbol, CEX_<id> token code, max trading limit, supported blockchains). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from getBizTokenList and getBizTokenPriceList, so an agent can quickly identify what this tool is for.

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 provides explicit when-to-use instructions ('call this before executing a trade', 'Required before calling getTradeQuote'), and explicit when-not-to-use with named alternatives ('Do NOT use this to get on-chain tradable tokens — use getBizTokenList', 'Do NOT use this for token prices — use getBizTokenPriceList'). This gives the agent complete routing guidance.

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