morpho_get_market_suppliers

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations (none provided). It explains the underlying query (marketPositions), cross-referencing with vault registry, and the inference logic for loopers with appropriate caveats ('inference from position shape, not confirmed'). It also discusses supply concentration implications and the effect of reward incentives, providing full transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by protocol context sections. It is informative without being overly verbose, though it could be slightly shortened. Each sentence adds value, making it efficient for an AI agent.

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?

Given the complexity of the Morpho protocol and lack of output schema, the description is complete. It covers the return content, operational details, limitations, and contextual signals (concentration, loopers, incentives). An agent can fully understand what the tool does and how to interpret results.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., market_key pattern explanation, top_n default and max) and reinforces the chain enum, but does not significantly extend beyond the schema. The mention of 'Use morpho_list_markets to find it' adds value but not enough to raise the score.

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's purpose: 'Show who supplies lending liquidity to a specific Morpho market.' It specifies the output (top suppliers ranked by supply size, identification of vaults vs EOAs vs loopers, concentration analysis) and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning related tools for other aspects (e.g., morpho_list_markets for finding markets).

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use morpho_list_markets to find market keys first.' It also notes alternatives for borrow-side analysis ('Use morpho_get_rate for borrow-side rate') and vault discovery ('Use morpho_list_vaults to discover all vaults'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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