SukukFi

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'verified' addresses and 'explorer links', but fails to state if this is a read-only operation, if authentication is needed, or what happens if data is unavailable. Lacks behavioral depth.

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?

Single sentence, no waste. Front-loaded with the key information ('Verified SukukFi contract addresses'). All words add value.

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?

Simple tool with no parameters and no output schema. Description covers what is returned (specific token and vault addresses). Missing minor details like number of items or format, but sufficient for low complexity.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage of nothing). With no params, baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info but also doesn't need to; it explains the return content adequately.

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 verb ('Verified...addresses') and resource ('SukukFi contract addresses') with specific scope ('Berachain Mainnet, duPRT share token, vault proxies'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_vault_stats and search_docs by focusing on static contract addresses.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to get contract addresses versus vault stats or docs). Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or 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?

No annotations provided, but description clearly states return type (markdown) and scope (full page). Could mention error handling for invalid slugs, but overall transparent for a read operation.

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, no superfluous words, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value.

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, read-only tool with one parameter, the description provides all necessary information: what it returns (markdown), how to find slugs, and an example. No output schema exists, so covering return format is sufficient.

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 fully describes the slug parameter with example. Description adds value by explaining how to obtain valid slugs (via search_docs) and provides a more complex example, enhancing understanding beyond 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?

Description clearly states it returns a full documentation page in markdown format, specifies resource (SukukFi), and distinguishes from sibling search_docs by advising to call it first to find a slug.

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 recommends using search_docs to find a slug before calling this tool, and provides an example of a known slug. Gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It states metrics returned and that data is refreshed from RPC, indicating read-only behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or potential side effects, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 with two sentences covering purpose and data source. It is front-loaded with the most important information (metrics list) but could benefit from structured presentation (e.g., listing parameter options).

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 no output schema and one optional parameter, the description adequately explains what metrics are returned. However, it omits any explanation of the asset parameter and does not specify output format or constraints, making it less complete for an agent with no prior knowledge.

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 0% because the description does not mention the 'asset' parameter. Although the schema defines three enum values, the description adds no additional meaning, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema for parameter understanding.

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 retrieves current on-chain metrics for SukukFi vaults on Berachain, listing specific metrics (capital held, pending deposits/redemptions, participant counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contracts, get_doc, get_vault_terms, and search_docs by specifying a unique data scope.

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 the tool is for live vault statistics but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The mention of 'refreshed from Berachain RPC' hints at real-time data, but no exclusions or comparison with sibling tools 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 present, so the description must carry the full burden. It correctly indicates that the tool retrieves deposit terms (implying a read operation), but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a simple retrieval with zero params, this is adequate but not outstanding.

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 purpose ('Deposit terms for the live SukukFi vault') and immediately lists what is included. Every word adds value, with no repetition or filler.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what the tool returns. It lists the specific fields, which is enough for an agent to understand the output. However, it does not describe the return format or structure, which could be helpful but is not critical here.

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 no parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The rule gives a baseline of 4 for 0 parameters. The description does not need to add param details, but it implicitly confirms no inputs are needed, which is correct.

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 tool's purpose: providing deposit terms specific to the live SukukFi vault. It lists the included fields (target yield, capacity, minimum ticket, lockup, accepted assets, settlement cycle), making the resource and scope explicit. Sibling tools like get_vault_stats and get_doc imply different focuses, so this tool is distinct.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_contracts, get_doc, get_vault_stats, search_docs). It assumes the agent will infer purpose from the name and title, but no context about prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions is 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 exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses the search corpora and gives examples but omits typical search behaviors such as result format, pagination, ordering, or rate limits. Minimal added value beyond basic purpose.

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 no redundancy. The colon structure efficiently lists corpora and example topics. Every word adds value.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is searched and provides examples. However, it lacks guidance on result structure (e.g., does it return snippets, titles, links?), which would aid completeness.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions for query and source. The description reinforces the corpora and example queries but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema. Baseline '3' is appropriate given coverage.

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 performs full-text search across two specific corpora (documentation and blog) with concrete topic examples. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_doc or get_contracts, the search function is distinct from direct retrieval.

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 for finding information across docs and blog by listing example queries, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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