get_tokens_latest

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses return fields (symbol, score, tier, liquidity, volume, risk assessment) and rate limit. It does not mention failure modes, caching behavior, or data freshness beyond 'most recent'. Since it's a read-only 'Get', the disclosed details are adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by return fields and limitations. Every sentence adds information: what it does, what it returns, and constraints. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 no-arg read-only tool, it covers purpose, return fields, rate limit, and auth requirements. It doesn't mention error cases or what happens when rate limit is exceeded, but that is minor. It could explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_token_signal, but the description is clear enough for an agent to recognize its scope.

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?

Tool has zero parameters; schema is empty. Description doesn't need to explain parameters. It enriches the tool's meaning by detailing the output structure, aligning with the baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools. The description adds value beyond the empty schema by explaining what the response contains.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the most recent token intelligence signal' and specifies chain scope (Ethereum, Base, BSC). Lists return fields, making it clear what this tool provides. Does not explicitly name sibling alternatives but the description itself is specific and distinguishes from tools like get_token_signal by focusing on the latest cross-chain signal.

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?

Provides usage context: 'Free, rate limited to 1 request per 5 minutes. No payment or API key required.' This gives constraints but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get_token_signal or get_token_history. The 'most recent' hint implies a time dimension but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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