pendle_get_protocol_stats

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

No annotations, but the description is transparent about the output: it includes per-chain breakdown, aggregate metrics, and mentions chain overlap with Spectra. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior but implies a query operation.

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 bullet points, clear sections, and no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (per-chain breakdown, aggregate metrics, etc.). It is complete for a tool with zero parameters.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With 0 parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output contents beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets Pendle protocol-wide statistics, listing specific metrics like total TVL, market count, liquidity, and volume. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning the equivalent tool in Spectra and directing users to pendle_list_markets for detailed market-level data.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (for protocol overview) and what to use instead for detailed market-level data (pendle_list_markets) and cross-protocol ranking (mv_scan_curator_opportunities). This provides clear guidance.

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