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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. While it mentions the output data (TVL, audits, risk grade), it does not disclose how the data is sourced, whether it is real-time, or any limitations like update frequency. This is insufficient for a tool that appears to provide aggregate risk assessments.

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 concise, front-loaded fragment that communicates the core purpose in just a few words. It uses a list format to convey key outputs and examples without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description partially covers the return content but omits critical context such as usage scenarios, data freshness, or how to interpret risk grades. The lack of usage guidelines and behavioral details leaves the description inadequate for confident tool selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the 'protocol' parameter. It provides a few example protocol names (Cetus, NAVI, Scallop, Bluefin), which help clarify the expected input format, but it does not define whether the value should be a canonical name, symbol, or address, nor does it list all valid options.

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 focus on protocol health with specific outputs (TVL, audits, risk grade) and examples of covered protocols. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sui_defi_yields (yields) and sui_dex_volume (volume) by emphasizing health metrics, though it lacks an explicit action verb.

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 like sui_protocol_list or sui_defi_yields. The description only lists example protocols, leaving the agent to infer its specific role without clear exclusions or 'use instead' directives.

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