get_token_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output fields and that it lists all registered tokens, but does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or requires any auth. For a simple get/list operation, the description is adequate but lacks extra behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately adding a use-case context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and why it is useful. It does not explicitly state side effects or limitations, but none are expected for a get-list operation. The coverage is adequate but could be slightly more comprehensive by stating it is read-only.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the return fields, which helps the agent understand the output even without an output schema. No parameter-specific detail is needed.

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 tool's action ('Get a list') and resource ('all registered Qubic tokens'), and specifies the return fields (name, issuer address, website). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_token_price or get_qx_orderbook, which have different purposes.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful for finding token issuers needed for QX orderbook queries.' This gives context for when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Scoring 4 because clear context is present, but no exclusion criteria.

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