search_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response format looks like (e.g., paginated results). The phrase 'Search for' implies a query operation, but lacks details on performance, errors, or side effects.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Search for SRC-20 tokens with various filtering criteria') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes an SRC-20 token, typical search scenarios, or the structure of returned results. For a search tool with multiple filtering options and pagination, more context about expected outputs and behavioral constraints is needed for effective agent use.

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%, providing detailed documentation for all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'various filtering criteria', which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter interactions or typical usage patterns.

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 action ('Search for') and resource ('SRC-20 tokens'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_collections' or 'search_stamps' beyond specifying the resource type, missing an opportunity for explicit differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_collections', 'search_stamps', or 'get_token_info'. It mentions 'various filtering criteria' but doesn't specify typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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