list_top_boosted_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: it explains that boosts are paid promotions, that high spend does not imply quality/traction/safety, and that it signals active pushing. It also documents return structure including error responses. A slight deduction for not mentioning rate limits or other potential constraints.

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 well-structured with a brief statement, a caution section, usage alternatives, and parameter/return doc. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Some redundancy in the caution section could be trimmed, but overall efficient for the content delivered.

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 lack of output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields (chainId, tokenAddress, etc.) and error handling. It also provides contextual advice about using complementary tools for deeper analysis. However, it could mention the ranking criterion or refresh frequency, leaving some minor gaps.

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 for the single parameter 'limit'. It states 'Max tokens to return', which is functional but minimal. No range, default behavior beyond schema, or caveats are provided, giving only basic value.

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 lists currently top-boosted tokens on DexScreener, a paid promotion. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_latest_dex_tokens and get_dex_token_pairs, providing a specific verb and resource with context.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it is useful as a signal of what is being actively pushed. It also gives clear when-not-to-use alternatives: prefer list_latest_dex_tokens for unbiased early tokens and get_dex_token_pairs for price/liquidity confirmation. The caveat to read results with skepticism adds further guidance.

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