Fetch Sui Vaults

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the operation as 'Fetch/Search all available vaults' but does not mention read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, pagination, or the effect of the 'limit' parameter. The hint about returned fields adds some context, but the description is generally thin on operational behavior.

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 is concise, with two short sections that are front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Hints' bullet adds useful return-value context without excess. Every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff.

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 low-complexity tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and some return-value details (vault name, apy, vaultId, tokenAddress). However, it omits important behavioral context (e.g., what 'all available' means with a default limit, error behavior, or whether any filtering is possible), leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 100% (the only parameter 'limit' has a description). The description does not add any additional meaning about parameters; it focuses on return values instead. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter 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 clearly states the action ('Fetch/Search') and resource ('all available vaults') scoped to Sui/SUI-chain, distinguishing it from sibling tools like solana-fetch-vaults and evm-fetch-vaults. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly scopes the tool to Sui/SUI-chain, providing clear context for when to use it over other chain-specific fetch tools. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternatives like 'use solana-fetch-vaults for Solana', so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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