Philidor DeFi Vault Risk Analytics

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 what the comparison covers (TVL, APR, risk, audited status) and implies a read-only analytical operation, but it does not state whether data is live, whether any external calls are made, or what happens with unsupported metrics.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the core action and scope are immediately clear.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough information to invoke it correctly: the vault count, the comparison dimensions, and the side-by-side presentation. The phrase 'and more' is slightly vague, but it does not block correct usage.

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 100%, so the single parameter 'vaults' and its nested 'network' and 'address' fields are already fully documented. The description adds context about what will be compared but no additional parameter syntax or formatting details, matching the baseline for high schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') with a clear resource ('2-3 DeFi vaults') and enumerates the comparison dimensions (TVL, APR, risk score, risk tier, audited status). This distinguishes it from single-vault tools like get_vault and ranked tools like find_safest_vaults.

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 clearly establishes the usage context: when an agent needs a side-by-side comparison of a specific set of 2-3 vaults. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the comparison framing is unambiguous enough to guide selection.

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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the tool provides an explanation including tier, calculation, and thresholds, with no hidden side effects. It could be more explicit about being read-only, but the behavior is clearly non-mutating and straightforward.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the key aspects it covers.

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 simple one-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It details what the explanation will include, though it does not specify the return format (e.g., text or object), which could be inferred from the tool's nature.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'score' with a clear description ('Risk score (0-10) to explain'). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, which justifies the baseline score of 3.

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's function: explaining what a Philidor risk score means, covering the tier, calculation, and thresholds. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vault_risk_breakdown, which likely focuses on a specific vault's breakdown.

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 an agent needs to understand the risk score system rather than retrieve data about specific vaults. It clearly indicates the context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains return size (top 10), sorting direction (Philidor risk score), the meaning of higher scores, and a safety caveat. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name, though it does not mention default behavior with no filters or error handling.

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 deliver the core purpose, filters, result cap, sorting rule, and a caveat without redundancy. The highest-value information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool with three optional filters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient orientation: what is returned, how it is ordered, and a risk caveat. Minor gaps like pagination and empty-result behavior are acceptable given the simple scope.

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 each parameter already has a descriptive definition. The description mirrors those filters ('asset, chain, or minimum TVL') without adding new parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete resource ('highest risk-scored DeFi vaults'), and key constraints: optional filters, top-10 limit, audited status, and Philidor risk score ordering. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_vaults or list_vaults_with_incidents.

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 surfacing top vaults by risk score and supports optional filtering, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. Usage context is inferable but not directly contrasted with sibling tools.

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 does disclose the informational content (managed vaults, TVL, etc.), which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, potential error scenarios, or any rate or permission requirements. The behavior is mostly implicit for a 'get' tool.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and efficiently lists the key data categories. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose and data categories. It could be more complete by mentioning the return format or error handling, but given the low complexity and high schema coverage, it 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 description coverage is 100% with the parameter 'curatorId' described as 'Curator ID'. The tool description adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema about how to obtain or format the ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter.

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 detailed information about a vault curator, and lists specific content areas (managed vaults, TVL, chain distribution, performance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vault or get_protocol_info, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 curator-level information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_vault or get_protocol_info. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, 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?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does this well by stating what data the tool returns for each reserve and by illustrating typical market-id formats. It does not discuss error behavior or auth, but for a read-only getter this is a modest 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?

Two sentences contain everything needed: the first states the tool's action and returned fields, the second gives examples and a discovery hint. There is zero filler, and the core information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough of a return contract—the per-reserve fields—and the ID acquisition pathway. Minor details such as the exact shape of the response or the range of risk tiers are omitted, but these are not essential for a correct call.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema's single example by providing four realistic patterns of marketId and pointing the agent to list_markets to find a valid one. This goes beyond the schema's 'Market id, e.g. aave-v4-10-etherfi-cash'.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Get one lending market with every reserve it contains,' and immediately specifies the returned fields: supplied, supply APR, borrowed, borrow APR, utilization, and risk tier. The concrete market-id examples further define the tool's scope and differentiate it from aggregate tools like get_market_overview.

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 clearly provides context for when this tool is needed—getting a single market's per-reserve details—and includes the discovery step 'use list_markets to find one'. It does not explicitly contrast with get_market_overview or other similar tools, but the phrase 'one lending market' makes the primary use case clear.

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?

Because there are no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about event categories and naming conventions, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, result ordering, pagination limits, historical coverage, or error cases. This is okay but not completely transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose and examples, then how to find a id, then two explicit exclusions. There is no filler or repetition.

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 a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers what kind of data will be returned, gives market id examples, points to list_markets for valid ids, and warns against confusing the tool with siblings. An agent can invoke this correctly without any additional context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description goes further by showing a realistic market id format and instructions for discovering valid ids. The limit parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable because it is already fully described.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving published risk events for a single lending market, and enumerates what counts as risk events (incidents, bad debt, liquidation cascades). It explicitly differentiates itself from get_market_overview and get_market, so an agent can select the right tool without ambiguity.

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 explicit usage guidance: use list_markets to find a valid market id, and clarifies what this tool is not for by naming alternatives. This is the kind of direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing that lets an agent avoid mistakes.

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 lists the output metrics, which clarifies what the tool returns, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like data freshness, whether it's a read-only operation, or any potential aggregation logic. For a simple overview tool, this is adequate 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 sentence that leads with the action 'Get' and immediately specifies the object and scope. It lists the key metrics without any filler, making it concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity of a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential return values (TVL, vault count, risk distribution, TVL by protocol). It could explicitly state the response format (e.g., 'returns a JSON object with...'), but the metric list effectively conveys the response content. For this complexity level, it is sufficiently 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameter usage, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. No additional semantics are required.

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 provides a high-level market overview with specific metrics (total TVL, vault count, risk distribution, TVL by protocol). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vault and get_protocol_info, which target individual entities. The verb 'Get' and resource 'DeFi vault market' are specific and unambiguous.

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 context is clear: use this tool when a market-level snapshot is needed, not for specific vault or protocol details. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'for specific vaults use get_vault'. The implication is strong but not directly stated.

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. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description is transparent about what data is returned (TVL, vault count, versions, auditors, security incidents). It does not mention side effects or error cases, but for a straightforward information retrieval tool, 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists relevant data points. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what information will be returned without needing to describe return formatting. It could mention response structure, but the listed data points give enough context for an agent to understand the tool's capability.

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 parameter protocolId already includes a description with examples (e.g., morpho, aave, yearn). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 tool gets detailed information about a DeFi protocol, listing specific content (TVL, vault count, versions, auditors, security incidents). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_vault or get_curator_info by focusing on protocol-level data, but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when needing protocol-level info such as TVL or security incidents. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools, so there are no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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 disclosure burden. The 'Get' verb makes the read-only nature reasonably clear and the description enumerates returned content categories. However, it does not mention response shape, pagination, or any prerequisite/permission considerations, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, and the second sentence explains the lookup modes. Every clause contributes useful information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description has to explain what the call returns, and it does so by naming risk breakdown, recent events, and historical snapshots. It does not detail exact response fields or behavior for ambiguous parameter combinations, but the essential information for using a single-vault lookup tool is present.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by stating the two lookup modes — standalone 'id' OR the 'network + address' pair — which clarifies the intended parameter combination and reduces the risk of supplying contradictory parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific DeFi vault') and lists the included content areas: risk breakdown, recent events, and historical snapshots. It distinguishes itself from the narrower get_vault_risk_breakdown sibling by using 'including', though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs comprehensive details about a single vault and has either an ID or network+address. It does not name excluded cases or alternatives, but the targeted 'specific vault' framing provides clear context without misleading the agent.

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 does disclose the output shape (four risk categories with sub-metrics) and 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval. It does not mention any special behavioral concerns such as score normalization, live vs cached data, or response limitations, but for a simple getter this is adequate though 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?

A single tightly written sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then enumerates the returned components without filler or repetition. Every phrase contributes information.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells an agent what it returns (four risk vectors and sub-metrics) and the schema provides all input details. It does not explain the return structure in detail, but the high-level description is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 100%; both address and network have clear explanations (namespace, chain slug format, examples, and how to list valid slugs). Since the schema already documents the parameters completely, the description adds no extra semantic value, matching the baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a vault's risk vectors') and enumerates four concrete components: Asset Composition, Platform and Strategy, Control and Governance, and History scores with sub-metrics. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as explain_risk_score or get_vault, so it doesn't fully earn the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 this is the tool to use when a detailed risk breakdown is needed, and the listed categories give context. However, it never states when to prefer it over alternatives like get_vault or explain_risk_score, nor provides any when-not conditions.

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 provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what the listing returns (supplied, borrowed, utilization), what granularity it covers (per market), and what it deliberately does not do (platform-wide totals). The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, and while it does not mention pagination or rate limits, it gives enough behavioral context for an agent to invoke it safely.

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 three sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and the market-type enumeration compactly placed in a single clause. The clarifying note at the end earns its place because it prevents a common confusion with a sibling tool. It is a bit longer than strictly necessary, but no sentence 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the returned metrics (supplied, borrowed, utilization) and clarifying market scope. All five optional input parameters are fully described in the schema, so the agent has what it needs to construct a call. Missing details such as explicit pagination behavior or a pointer to get_market for single-market lookups are minor given the schema coverage.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 because parameter details already live in the schema. The description adds useful domain color by mapping protocols to their concrete market shapes (e.g., Aave V4 spokes, Morpho Blue loan/collateral pairs), but it does not need to restate parameter format or defaults. This is acceptable but adds only modest value beyond the 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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('List lending markets') and then enumerates exactly what counts as a market: Aave/Spark pools, Aave V4 spokes, Compound Comets, Morpho Blue pairs, and Kamino K-Lend markets. The second sentence concretizes the return value (supplied, borrowed, utilization per market), and the final note explicitly distinguishes it from get_market_overview.

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 gives a clear when-not signal by warning that this is not get_market_overview, which returns platform-wide totals rather than per-market data. It also frames the tool as the one to use when you need the individual market a depositor actually picks. It stops short of a full comparison with other siblings like get_market, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful details: the 365-day window, the definition of 'critical', and the sorting logic (TVL descending, then recency). It does not mention whether a vault with multiple incidents appears once or the exact return structure, but it is transparent about the core filtering and ordering 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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds necessary criteria and sorting. Each word earns its place.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is listed, the incident criteria, and the ordering. It does not specify the fields included in each vault object, but given the simplicity and familiarity of vault-related tools, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide on invocation.

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 no parameters, so the description has nothing to add beyond the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's output behavior instead.

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's function: listing vaults that experienced a critical incident within the last 365 days. It also precisely defines what qualifies as 'critical' (severity Critical or incident_severity major) and specifies the sorting order, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like search_vaults or find_safest_vaults.

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 conveys a clear usage context: use this when you need a list of vaults with recent critical incidents. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios where this tool should not be used, falling short of providing full comparative guidance.

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 transparency burden. It does disclose that results are paginated and include risk scores and APR, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention default sorting, whether results can be empty, or how pagination is controlled—especially notable because the schema has no page or cursor parameter.

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 with the main action and key filters front-loaded. 'And more' is slightly vague but harmless. It is compact without wasting words, though it doesn't use structure like separate sentences for behavioral notes.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It mentions a paginated list but provides no output shape details beyond 'risk scores and APR,' and it doesn't explain how pagination works when the schema lacks a page parameter. An agent calling this tool has to guess at response structure and pagination behavior.

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 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters, so the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. It only restates filters generically ('chain, protocol, asset, risk tier, TVL'), which adds no new meaning beyond the 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 verb and resource: 'Search and filter DeFi vaults' by several specific criteria, and notes the result includes risk scores and APR. It is distinct from get_vault and get_market in intent, but it doesn't explicitly name any sibling alternative, so it doesn't quite earn 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?

The description implies this is the general-purpose discovery tool for vaults, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use search_vaults versus siblings like find_safest_vaults, list_vaults_with_incidents, or compare_vaults. There are no stated exclusions or selection criteria.

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