sentinel_scan

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full disclosure burden. It adequately discloses return values (feed prices, staleness, anomalies) and geographic scope (6+ chains), but omits operational traits like execution duration, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether results are cached vs real-time.

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 tightly constructed sentences with zero waste. First sentence establishes action and scope; second discloses return values. Information density is high with no filler words or redundant phrasing.

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?

Compensates well for missing output schema by detailing return data types (prices, staleness flags, anomalies). However, lacks specifics on the '6+' chain identities, response format structure, or pagination behavior for what is likely a large data set.

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?

Zero parameters present, establishing baseline score of 4. Description correctly implies no configuration needed for the cross-chain scope, though it could explicitly confirm 'no parameters required' for absolute clarity.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'scan' with clear resource 'Chainlink oracle' and scope 'across 6+ EVM chains'. The term 'full cross-chain' effectively distinguishes this from siblings like sentinel_chain (likely single chain) and sentinel_feed (likely specific feed).

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 implied usage through 'full' suggesting comprehensive analysis, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like sentinel_feed for targeted checks or sentinel_compare for differential analysis. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites mentioned.

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