research_hack_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the data source (DefiLlama) and the exact return format (list of incidents with protocol name, date, USD amount, attack technique, source URL), which is valuable since no output schema is provided. Minor gaps remain regarding pagination or default sorting, but the description meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 entire description is one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause earns its place. It efficiently conveys purpose, return data, and use case with no 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?

This is a simple query tool with 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations. The description covers the what, the data returned, and the intended use case. Minor omissions like default limit behavior or sort order are not critical given the simplicity and schema coverage, making it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'limit' and 'protocol' already described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden and does so adequately.

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 specific action ('Query the history of DeFi hacks and exploits tracked by DefiLlama') and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling research tools like research_contract_security or research_token_due_diligence. The listed return fields (protocol name, date, USD lost, attack technique, source URL) further solidify the tool's unique purpose.

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: 'enabling security research and risk assessment of protocols.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that usage is implied. Without a 'when not to use' note, it falls just 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.