Token directory

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose the returned attributes and the price-state vocabulary (priced, quoted, no_market). However, it says nothing about result size, since 'every token from every source' implies a very large unpaginated response, nor about caching or freshness of trust/price data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the value proposition with no filler. Its brevity is partly under-specification rather than tightness, which keeps it from a 5.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is passable, but 'every token from every source' is a heavyweight claim with no note on volume, truncation, or refresh cadence, and the three listed attributes give only a partial picture of a record. Enough to call it, not enough to set expectations about the response.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema; the baseline applies. The description adds field-level meaning (price state vocabulary) that is not expressed in the schema.

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?

It names the resource (tokens) and the scope ('every token from every source') and lists three return attributes, but there is no explicit verb and no differentiation from near-identical siblings such as gno_token_registry, gno_token_metadata, or gno_price_list. An agent can guess it is a bulk enumeration but cannot tell from the text why it should pick this over the registry.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives like gno_token_registry or gno_prices. The agent must infer selection from the sibling names alone.

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