get_protocol_tvl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return data (current TVL, by chain, category, recent changes) but does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid protocol), data freshness, or whether it requires special permissions. As a read-only query, it is adequately transparent for most scenarios but lacks 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?

The description is only two sentences, both front-loaded with essential information. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what the tool does, the second explains when to use it. No filler or redundancies.

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, the description provides a reasonable outline of return fields (current TVL, TVL by chain, category, recent changes). It could be more complete by specifying units (e.g., USD) or data freshness, but it covers the key aspects for the agent to understand the tool's output.

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 a single parameter described as 'Protocol name'. The description adds valuable context by listing examples (kamino, jito, marinade, raydium) and clarifying it is Solana DeFi protocols, which goes beyond the raw 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 it returns detailed TVL and metrics for a specific Solana DeFi protocol, listing specific data points (current TVL, by chain, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_top_solana_protocols' which lists multiple protocols, and 'analyze_wallet_defi_positions' which is wallet-specific.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks about a specific protocol's health or TVL.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use statements, but the sibling tools cover alternative use cases.

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