search_protocols

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions ranking by TVL and the empty-query behavior, which is useful. However, it does not describe response format, pagination, or whether search is fuzzy or exact—leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence conveys the core functionality, examples, sorting criterion, and special empty-query case. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action ('Search DeFi protocols').

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?

The tool is simple with only two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the key behavioral cues (search criteria, ranking, empty-query default). A minor gap is the lack of mention of returned fields or result limits, but the schema's limit parameter mitigates this.

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 both 'limit' and 'query' fully described in the schema. The description reiterates the query parameter's meaning (name, symbol, category) but adds no new detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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: searching DeFi protocols by name, symbol, or category, with results ranked by TVL. It also provides concrete examples ('lending', 'dexes', 'aave') and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_protocol (specific protocol) and get_chains_tvl (chains).

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 gives explicit usage context: how to search (by name, symbol, category) and the empty-query fallback for top protocols. It implies when to use this tool versus others (e.g., for broad searches rather than specific details), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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