Get Vault Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully reinforces this by naming the live API endpoint (GET /vaults/:address) and detailing the response contents, though it says nothing about auth, rate limits, or error 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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose and return contents front-loaded, followed by the parameter source. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the purpose, return payload, and parameter source an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0% and the single required param has no schema-level text, so the description carries the load. It adds real value by specifying the address is base58 and originates from list_dtfs, compensating well for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (full vault detail) and enumerates what is returned: the vault doc, current weights, deviations, fee structure, and TVL cap. This is clearly distinguished from siblings like list_dtfs (multi-vault listing) and the various update_vault_* mutators.

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 naming list_dtfs as the source of the required address, establishing the workflow relationship between the two tools. It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions or contrasting against alternatives like get_portfolio.

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