spectra_get_pt_details

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details that the output surfaces conditional warnings (e.g., PT above par, skewed reserves, incentive-dominated APR) and explains protocol mechanics (PT discount, PT+YT=1, YT leverage). This goes beyond a simple listing of fields.

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 overview, bullet-point fields, protocol context, and usage guidelines. It is slightly long but every sentence provides value; could be tighter but still effective.

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 tool's complexity (many return fields, no output schema, conditional behavior), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the protocol, return values, edge-case warnings, and sibling alternatives. No gaps are evident.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (chain enum and pt_address pattern). The description does not add new semantic details about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, but it does contextualize the parameters within the broader protocol explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already does most of the work.

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 detailed information about a specific Spectra Principal Token (PT).' It lists specific return fields, and distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives for different use cases, such as compare fixed vs variable rates or check wallet holdings.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it directs to spectra_compare_yield, spectra_get_looping_strategy, spectra_get_portfolio, and spectra_get_pool_activity for related but different tasks. This fully helps the agent choose correctly among siblings.

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