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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: 404 for unknown ids, 400 for invalid arguments, 503 while data refreshes, and all errors resolve before payment. It also discloses the billing model (x402, $0.01 USDC on Base, charged only for a 200), which is exactly the kind of cost/irreversibility context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then use case, then id format, then error/pricing behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information. It is dense but not padded; the pricing sentence is a little long relative to the rest.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, id provenance, failure modes and cost — which is most of what an agent needs. It partially describes the response ('with their total TVL') but says nothing about result shape, ordering, or size limits.

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% and the schema already documents the entity id format with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by naming dependency graphs as the source of valid ids and repeating the id syntax (e.g. protocol:morpho-blue), reducing the chance of a malformed call. No further syntax or edge-case detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns tracked Base opportunities that depend on a named entity, plus their aggregate TVL. It also enumerates the entity kinds (protocol, stablecoin, oracle, curator), which pins down scope. It does not explicitly contrast with the reverse-direction sibling get_dependency_graph, so the boundary is left slightly implicit.

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?

Gives a concrete decision context — 'sizing the impact of an exploit, depeg or oracle failure' — which tells the agent when this tool is the right one. It also notes where entity ids come from ('appear in dependency graphs'), which is effectively a prerequisite. No explicit when-not or named alternative is offered.

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