listings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It conveys read-only browsing ('View', 'Browse') but does not explicitly state the tool is non-destructive, nor does it describe edge cases, result pagination, or possible errors. It gives a reasonable overview but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 concise and well-structured, with a short lead sentence followed by a bulleted list of actions. Every line provides useful information with no redundant or filler text, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description explains what each action displays (active tokens, user coins, top volume, address search). It covers all enumeration options and the purpose of the 'query' parameter. It does not detail the exact fields returned or pagination, but for a browse tool this is reasonably complete given the straightforward nature and 100% schema coverage.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, and the description adds a readable mapping of the enum values to their meanings ('all (most active 24h)', 'mine (your coins)', etc.). This matches the schema and provides a bit of extra context, but the schema already explains the parameters adequately, so no major additional value is added.

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: 'Browse coins launched on Vibecoins.' It also enumerates specific action modes (all, mine, top, search) with clear one-line explanations, making the tool's functionality very distinct and understandable. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on browsing/listing, not launching or wallet operations.

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 when to use each action (e.g., 'search' for by-address lookup, 'mine' for user-specific listings), providing basic usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between this and 'info' or 'launch'.

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