Lookalike tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses ordering, the three verdict categories, and the impostor criterion ('beacon test'). It does not mention pagination or default limits, but for a read-only listing tool the exposed behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler; each clause contributes meaningful detail about classification, ordering, or filtering. The heavy parenthetical structure keeps it from being maximally scannable, but it is still efficient.

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?

The description explains the domain, verdicts, and ordering, but with no output schema it does not sketch the shape of each returned result beyond the verdict. Limit semantics are also left ambiguous, so an agent may not know exactly what to expect from a call.

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 only 50%, and the description adds little beyond the symbol parameter by saying 'Filter by symbol.' The limit parameter has no schema description and no mention in the description, leaving its effect and default behavior unexplained.

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 defines the resource: ERC-20s that borrow a listed ticker or exact name at another address, and it specifies output ordering ('most held first') and a verdict taxonomy. This makes the tool easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_assets or get_asset.

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 only usage guidance is 'Filter by symbol,' which implies the intended call pattern but does not explain when to prefer lookalikes over list_assets or get_asset. It also does not clarify whether the symbol filter is required or optional in practice.

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