find_gems

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'rug-gated' implying a safety filter, but does not explain what this means, whether the operation is read-only, or what the response contains. The description is too terse to provide sufficient transparency.

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 very concise, using two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and the key parameter. However, it may be under-specified for a tool with no output schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should provide richer context. It fails to explain the meaning of 'rug-gated', what fields are returned, or any additional parameters. The tool appears to be a discovery tool, but the description is too minimal to be complete.

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 description provides the parameter 'tab' with possible values 'new | trending | graduated', which adds meaning beyond the opaque schema (which only has an 'args' object). However, it does not clarify whether 'tab' is required, what default applies, or how to structure it within 'args'. This partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as returning 'rug-gated new/trending tokens' and distinguishes it from siblings like list_tradeable_tokens by focusing on new/trending tokens with a safety filter. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'find' or 'list', making it slightly ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'tab' parameter hints at filtering categories, but there is no explicit statement of use cases or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear direction on when to select this tool over sibling tools.

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