List Funds

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value by enumerating the returned fields (address, name/symbol, status, TVL, share price, fees, basket allocations) and noting the live API plus a limit cap of 50. It still omits pagination defaults and 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then returns, then filters — a logical three-part structure with no filler. The first sentence is somewhat long and parenthetical-heavy, but every clause earns its place.

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 appropriately explains the return shape and covers all inputs adequately for a list tool. Minor gaps remain around pagination defaults and result-count/behavior at boundaries, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 full burden, and it does: it documents category with concrete enum codes (7 Fun, 8 RWA, 3 AI, 9 Stocks, 4 Gaming, 1 DeFi, 255 custom), search (name), creator (wallet), sortBy + sortDir, page, and limit (max 50). This maps to all seven parameters and even supplies the category enum absent from the schema.

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 (List) and resource (funds from the DFM v2 API, GET /vaults), clarifying that these are vault/marketplace entities. It is clearly distinguishable from singular siblings like get_vault, though the tool name 'list_dtfs' vs the description's 'funds'/'vaults' terminology introduces mild naming friction.

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 implies the browse/discovery use case ('the same filter, sort and search surface the marketplace page uses') but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_vault or get_portfolio, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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