spectra_list_metavaults

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly details the tool's behavior: what data is returned (curator info, TVL, APY, LP positions, external positions with caveats, cross-chain modules, status flags, vault flows, bridge transactions, epoch history), how the verify_onchain flag works (adds chain-truth line, never aborts on failure, concurrency capped at 6), and the handling of HIDDEN vaults. It even notes that the external positions field is undocumented and may change.

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 summary, bullet points of returned data, and usage guidance. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value. The dissolution note on verify_onchain is a nice touch but slightly wordy. Overall, it earns a 4 for being clear and organized despite length.

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 tool (many sibling tools, chain reads, cross-chain features) and the lack of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all relevant aspects: what the tool returns, how to use it with other tools, edge cases (HIDDEN vaults, fallback for unknown protocols), and behavioral details like concurrency limits and failure handling.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: for 'chain', it clarifies that omitting the parameter scans all chains. For 'verify_onchain', it provides extensive context on behavior, use cases, and even a potential future deprecation path, giving the agent deep understanding.

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 defines the tool's purpose: listing live MetaVaults from the Spectra API. It provides a solid definition of MetaVaults and explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings like spectra_model_metavault and spectra_get_curator_dashboard, giving the agent a precise understanding of when to use this tool.

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 offers explicit usage guidance: use this tool to discover live MetaVaults, then pass the address to spectra_model_metavault for detailed modeling or spectra_get_curator_dashboard for operational views. It also provides clear alternatives for investigating curator activity (spectra_get_address_activity) and explains when to use the verify_onchain flag, including its trade-offs.

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