get-tokens-of-address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: default returns (first 25 of each token type), ability to specify size, and that the returned list contains twice the specified number if available. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps for a read operation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: explaining default returns, how to adjust size, and the total token count. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by separating key points more clearly, such as listing token types upfront.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness for a read operation tool with two parameters. It covers the tool's behavior and parameter usage reasonably well, but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of returned tokens), error handling, or performance considerations, which are important for full contextual understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (address and size) adequately. The description adds marginal value by explaining the default size (25) and that size affects both fungible and non-fungible token counts, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. This meets the baseline for high 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the tokens of an address.' It specifies the resource (tokens) and verb (get), and distinguishes it from siblings like get-balance-of-address by focusing on token holdings rather than balance. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other token-related tools like send-fungible-tokens, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 implies usage for retrieving token lists from an address, with context on default behavior and how to adjust token counts. It mentions 'To get more tokens, specify the number,' which provides some guidance on when to use the size parameter. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or comparisons to alternatives like get-balance-of-address, leaving usage somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.

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