L2 metrics (L2BEAT)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context not in annotations — the data source and freshness ('L2BEAT nightly') — but says nothing about pagination, default result count, or how the limit behaves, which matters for a listing tool.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the resource/fields come first and the query/filter mechanics follow. Efficient, though the parenthetical source note could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields (stage, category, stack, risk summary, TVS breakdown). It is nearly complete, missing only return volume/pagination behavior for a tool with a limit parameter.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It usefully supplies the accepted stage values ('Stage 0/1/2'), which the schema lacks entirely as an enum, and clarifies that query matches name/id/stack. However, the limit parameter (1–100) is never explained, and query matching semantics (exact vs. partial) remain vague.

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 states the resource (Ethereum L2/L3 project metrics) and enumerates the returned fields (stage, category, stack, risk summary, TVS breakdown), which clearly separates it from sibling TVL tools like chains_tvl and bridges_tvl. It does not explicitly name a verb like 'list' or 'query', but the content and provenance (L2BEAT nightly) make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It tells the agent how to query (by name/id/stack) and filter (by stage), which implies usage, but gives no when-to-use vs. siblings such as chains_tvl or top_defi_protocols, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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