research_protocol_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful conditional behavior (CoinGecko-listed token -> extra dev/community/sentiment data) and source, but does not disclose failure modes, output format, or pagination.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and list key return fields, with the conditional added in the second sentence. No redundant or vague wording.

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 one-parameter, read-only info tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and the conditional enrichment. No output schema is present, but the description acts as a return-value summary.

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 fully describes the single 'protocol' parameter as a DefiLlama slug with examples. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no further semantic value; baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a DeFi protocol'), enumerating specific data categories (TVL, chain breakdown, category, audit history, funding rounds) and source (DefiLlama). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling research tools like research_contract_security or market_get_protocol_tvl.

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 communicates the tool's scope and data source, implying use when a comprehensive protocol profile is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools (e.g., research_fund_raises, research_contract_security) or mention exclusions.

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