SukukFi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It adds value by stating the addresses are 'verified' and that explorer links are included, scoping to Berachain Mainnet and specific contract types. It does not detail output structure or error behavior, but for a read-only getter, this is sufficient.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core message ('Verified SukukFi contract addresses') and adds only essential details (network, contract types, explorer links). No word is wasted.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies what is returned and the supported assets. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format (e.g., a list or map), but it is complete enough for most use cases.

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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description's reference to 'each accepted asset' implies no filtering or input is needed, aligning with the empty schema.

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 returns verified SukukFi contract addresses on Berachain Mainnet, naming the specific contracts (duPRT share token and vault proxies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_doc and get_vault_stats, which focus on documentation and statistics.

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 use when contract addresses are needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparisons to alternative tools. Siblings like get_vault_terms are not mentioned, so the usage context is only implied.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (markdown) and that it returns a full page, which is useful. It does not mention error behavior or authentication, but for a simple documentation getter this is adequate and transparent about its core behavior.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The primary action is stated first, and the second sentence enriches usage context with an example and workflow. Every phrase contributes.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it defines the purpose, the input, the workflow, and the output format. No critical information is missing.

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% with an example, but the description adds semantic value by advising to use search_docs first and offering a realistic, domain-specific slug example, enhancing the schema's minimal description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('a full SukukFi documentation page as markdown'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_docs which locate pages. It also provides an example slug for concrete identification.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call search_docs first to find a slug, or alternatively pass a known slug. This directly guides the agent on when and how to use the tool versus the search alternative.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses data freshness ('Refreshed from Berachain RPC') and the scope of metrics, but does not explain parameter behavior, error conditions, or explicitly confirm read-only nature. Some behavioral traits are implied but not fully disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the main function and data source without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 description covers the main return values and data source, but it lacks parameter semantics and explicit read-only/safety notes. For a simple stats tool, it is decent but incomplete, as the agent may be unsure whether the asset parameter is required or what it does.

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 schema has one optional parameter 'asset' with an enum, but the description does not explain its purpose (e.g., filtering by asset or aggregating all). With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning about this parameter, leaving the agent to infer from the enum alone.

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 explicitly states it provides 'current on-chain metrics' and lists specific metrics (capital held, pending deposits/redemptions, participant counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contracts or get_doc, which focus on contracts and documentation.

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 when vault statistics are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance on when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds value by noting the terms are 'live' and listing the covered fields, but it does not disclose potential behaviors like data freshness guarantees, error cases, or whether the data is sourced on-chain or via API. For a simple zero-parameter getter, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists all key terms without waste. Every piece of information ('live', vault name, field list) contributes to understanding what the tool returns.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers the return content well by listing all major deposit term categories. It is not exhaustive about formatting or potential edge cases, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple getter.

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 is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly implies no inputs are needed and focuses on the returned content.

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 identifies the resource (live SukukFi vault) and enumerates specific contents (target yield, capacity, minimum ticket, lockup, accepted assets, settlement cycle), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_vault_stats. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name and context make it an obvious retrieval operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_vault_stats or get_contracts. The intended use is implied by the resource name and field list, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only 'public' content is searched, which is a scope limitation. However, it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., snippets, relevance scores) or any further behavioral details like pagination or rate limits. For a search tool, the absence of output behavior is a notable gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The parenthetical listing of topics is informative but slightly extends length. Overall, every part adds value, though it could be slightly more succinct by trimming examples.

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 relatively simple search tool with three parameters, the description adequately conveys scope and content coverage. However, without an output schema or annotations, it leaves the agent without details about the response format or any limitations (e.g., max results). It is sufficient for basic understanding but not fully comprehensive.

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 67% (query and source have descriptions, limit does not). The description aligns with those parameters by mentioning 'documentation and the blog' (source) and giving example queries. It does not add meaning beyond the schema, particularly for the 'limit' parameter, which remains undocumented. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('full-text search') and the resource ('public SukukFi writing'), and enumerates the two corpora (documentation and blog). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contracts or get_vault_stats, which focus on specific data retrieval rather than free-form search.

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 this tool: to search across documentation and blog content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., get_doc for retrieving a specific document). There is no exclusions guidance, so usage is only implied.

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