filterNetworkTokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no new behavioral context such as pagination limits or rate limiting beyond what the input schema provides, so the added value is minimal.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences: first states the purpose, second lists required and optional params. No extraneous words or repetition; each 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?

Given 16 parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function. Minor omissions like deprecation notes for order_by/sort are present in the schema, so no critical gaps remain.

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 100%, so every parameter already has a description in the schema. The description in text merely repeats the list of parameters and their required/optional status without adding deeper meaning, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 begins with 'Filter tokens by volume, liquidity, FDV, transactions, and creation time,' which clearly states the action (filter) and resource (tokens) with specific criteria. This distinguishes it from siblings like getTopTokens (unfiltered) and getTokenDetails (single token).

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 explicitly marks 'network' as required and lists many optional filters, implying usage for metric-based filtering. While it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use, the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over others for filtered queries.

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