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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but says nothing about whether these are static protocol config values vs. live values, whether results are cached, or any auth/permission requirements. That is a meaningful gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place by naming the resource and the returned field categories. Not padded, but also very short, leaving little room for structure.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does list the key returned fields (liquidation thresholds, LTV ratios, collateral factors), which partially compensates for the missing output schema. Only the absence of usage context keeps it from being fully complete.

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 single `protocol` parameter is fully documented with format examples (aave-v3, compound-v3) in the schema. The description adds only the phrase 'for a specific DeFi protocol', which is already implied. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Get) and resource (risk parameters for a specific DeFi protocol), and enumerates the concrete fields returned (liquidation thresholds, LTV ratios, collateral factors). It does not, however, differentiate itself from near siblings like get_risk_summary or check_liquidation_risk, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent risk tools (get_risk_summary, check_liquidation_risk, check_position_safety, pre_trade_safety_check). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no named alternative. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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