pyth_list_feeds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and only partially fills it: it discloses the one-hour catalog caching behavior, which is genuinely useful. It does not cover rate limits, whether the operation is a read, or what the results look like.

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 with zero filler; the resource and search keys come first and the caching caveat follows. Nothing redundant.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks the meaning of limit and asset_type, and there is no indication of result shape or default page size.

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 0% across all four parameters. The description only indirectly maps to two of them — 'symbol or description' implies the meaning of query, and the cache sentence hints at force_refresh. The limit and asset_type parameters remain completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') against a named resource ('the Pyth Hermes price feed catalog') and states the search keys ('symbol or description'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like pyth_get_price or pyth_resolve_feed, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Searching the catalog by symbol or description implies the use case, and the 'one-hour catalog cache by default' hints that this is a listing/lookup operation rather than a live price fetch. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no sibling alternative named.

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