getTokenSplashProjectList

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a solid job: it reveals pagination via cursor + limit, enumerates status meanings (0=upcoming, 1=ongoing, 2=ended), and clarifies optional narrowing by projectId or activityCoin. It does not cover response shape or ordering, but the core call behavior is disclosed.

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 and readable, but it repeats the same idea ('Returns a paginated list...' vs 'Use this endpoint to list Token Splash activities') and includes the meta sentence 'AI agent can use this...' that adds little operational value. Tightening to two sentences would make it stronger.

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 paginated read/list tool with no output schema, the description covers the required status parameter, optional filters, and pagination mechanism, so an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly. It is less complete on return structure, but the 'list of Token Splash activities' phrasing plus schema constraints make this acceptable.

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 compensates by decoding status values, explaining projectId as the specific-activity lookup, and describing cursor + limit pagination. activityCoin is only restated by name, and limit defaults are left to the schema, but the key semantics are provided.

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 opening sentence names the exact operation ('Returns a paginated list of Token Splash activities') and identifies the primary filter (status), immediately differentiating it from generic list tools and from siblings like getTokenSplashUserActivityParams. The optional narrowing by project code or activity coin further defines its scope.

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 tells an agent when to use it: to browse available Token Splash activities or look up a specific project by code, and the Agent hint reinforces the endpoint's role. It does not name alternative tools to rule out, but for this list operation the context is clear enough.

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