mv_get_protocol_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that 'protocol_pulse' fetches real-time data (5-15 seconds), but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. While the description implies a safe operation, it could be more explicit about behavioral traits like idempotency or potential rate limits.

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 paragraphs and bullet points, front-loading the core purpose and then listing topics with usage advice. However, it is somewhat verbose and includes some redundancy (e.g., topics listed twice), which could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity.

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 lack of an output schema, the description does not explain the return format or data structure. However, it covers all necessary usage context and topic descriptions, making it adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly. A minor gap is the absence of output details, but the tool's nature (teaching mechanics) makes this less critical.

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% with a single optional parameter 'topic' and an enum of 12 values. The description adds significant meaning by explaining each topic's purpose and context, far beyond the schema's enum list, making it easy for the agent to select the correct topic.

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: 'Get essential protocol mechanics for Spectra, Pendle, and Morpho — needed for correct reasoning.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a meta-context tool that explains how all protocols and their tools work, rather than performing protocol-specific actions.

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 guidance on when to use specific topics, such as recommending 'pendle_morpho' first for understanding multi-protocol scope, and 'workflow_routing' for learning which tools to call. It also explains when to omit the topic parameter to get all topics at once, leaving no ambiguity.

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