Src20 Market

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 is transparent about the unreliable nature of multi-period volumes upstream, often returning 0, which is a valuable caveat. It also explains that without tick the result is a ranked list, implying an ordered response. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (beyond page/limit parameters), rate limits, or any potential side effects, though as a read operation this is minor.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the purpose and behavior. It uses a compact list of fields and a clear conditional structure. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming the exhaustive field list, but it remains readable and well-organized.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, an output schema exists (though not shown), which presumably documents return fields. The description covers the core behavior, the data quality caveat, and the sort options. It does not explicitly explain how to interpret data_quality_score or pagination details, but these are likely covered by the output schema. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the tick parameter (with/without behavior) and the sort options (market_cap_usd, volume_24h_btc, price_change_24h_percent) and mentions order asc/desc. It does not explicitly describe page or limit, but these are self-explanatory and have defaults. The description adds significant meaning to the non-trivial parameters.

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 resource (SRC-20 market data) and its dual behavior: with a tick it returns that token's market data, without it returns a ranked list. It enumerates the available sort keys and fields, which fully differentiates it from sibling tools like get_src20 or list_src20_deploys that serve different purposes (individual token details vs market rankings).

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 context through the behavioral distinction (with/without tick) and the sort options, making it clear when to use this tool for market data. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, relying on the sibling names to hint at alternatives. No direct exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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