debank_get_user_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination, filtering (is_all, chain_id, token_id), and return structure. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or side effects, but for a read operation these are less critical. The description adds value beyond the schema.

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 detailed but every sentence adds value. It is organized with a clear header, parameter list, return info, and examples. Slightly verbose but still efficient for the complexity.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter usage, return values, pagination, and examples. It is fully self-contained and guides correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate. It fully defines each parameter, explains defaults, and provides concrete examples. The description adds significant meaning that the schema lacks.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('user's token holdings from DeBank'). The tool name is specific, and the description adds scope details like cross-chain vs single-chain. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like debank_get_user_balance or debank_get_user_nfts.

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?

No explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The examples imply common use cases, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer for specific needs.

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