get_protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the returned data (TVL, 1d/7d change, chains, category), giving a concrete picture of the tool's output. While it doesn't mention error handling or edge cases, for a simple read-only getter this is adequate and goes beyond a bare schema.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes essential examples, without any filler or repetition of the schema. Every word adds value, making it highly scannable for an 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 a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It names all relevant data fields and distinguishes the tool from siblings. There is no additional context needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already covers the single 'name' parameter with a description. The tool description adds semantic richness by clarifying that the name should be a specific protocol (e.g., 'Aave', 'Uniswap', 'Lido') and implies exact naming, which helps the agent supply a valid value. This exceeds the schema's minimal explanation.

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 function: 'Get current TVL, 1d/7d change, chains, and category for a single DeFi protocol by name.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('single DeFi protocol'), and provides concrete examples ('Aave', 'Uniswap', 'Lido'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_protocols or get_chains_tvl.

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 phrase 'for a single DeFi protocol by name' gives clear context that this tool is appropriate when you already know the exact protocol name, implying a lookup use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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