filterNetworkTokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: 'Read-only and keyless', AND-combined filters, pagination via next_cursor, default/max limit, and sort aliases. It also discloses the response wrapper, which the annotations do not cover.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose, safety, sibling differentiation, examples, filter semantics, then parameter summary. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema; every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 19-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage alternatives, response shape, filter combination semantics, pagination, defaults, and aliases. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists, and it leaves no major contextual gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping filters, stating they are AND-combined, noting network is required, and summarizing defaults/aliases (limit default 50 max 100, sort_by default volume_usd_24h, sort_dir default desc). It also provides real-world usage examples that clarify parameter intent, though the schema already documents each parameter individually.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get tokens on one network matching numeric thresholds'. It also names the response shape ('returned under results with has_next_page and next_cursor') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool getTopTokens, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Choose this over getTopTokens when the user gives numeric constraints or a time window', followed by concrete example queries. It also points to an alternative for other price-change windows ('for 6h, 1h or 5m use getNetworkPoolsFilter'), which is strong usage differentiation.

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