research_airdrops

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description complements these with the return fields (name, protocol, eligibility criteria, estimated value, claim deadline, status) and the data source (DefiLlama), adding value beyond the annotations. It also conveys urgency with 'before they expire,' which is useful behavioral context.

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 consists of two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second lists return fields and intended use. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy, and it is appropriately 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema) and robust annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, return content, and urgency. It could be more complete by noting result sorting or default limits, but for a discovery tool, it provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only parameter, 'limit,' is fully described in the schema as 'Maximum number of results to return.' The description adds no additional meaning about how limit interacts with results, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Discover active and upcoming token airdrop opportunities tracked by DefiLlama,' a specific verb-resource pairing that clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling research tools by focusing solely on airdrops, a unique domain in the toolset.

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 phrase 'to help users identify and act on airdrop opportunities before they expire' provides clear context for when to use the tool, emphasizing time-sensitive discovery. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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