Fetch EVM Vaults

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses output contents ('basic vaults information' and 'transactional identifiers') and hints at performance behavior, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, error handling, or prerequisites. This is adequate but not rich.

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 paragraphs with no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded, the chain list is compact, and the hints section earns its place by adding practical usage advice. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose, network scope, and output contents (basic info + identifiers). Since there is no output schema, the mention of result fields helps the agent anticipate return values. It stops short of detailing edge cases or performance limits, but is fairly complete for a fetch operation.

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 each parameter already well-described (e.g., limit default and personalization trigger). The description adds only a performance hint for the networks parameter, which is useful but not necessary beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool 'Fetch/Search all available vaults from across Ethereum/EVM chains' and enumerates supported chains, distinguishing it from the Solana and Sui fetch-vault siblings. The scope and resource are 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?

Provides clear context by encouraging batches network lists for performance optimization, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the sibling 'fetch-vault-analytics' or when not to use it. The EVM-specific scope implicitly differentiates from Solana/Sui variants.

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