cascade_watch

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool does (monitor) and what it returns (risk score, exposure at price drops, narrative). It does not mention authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects, but the tool is inherently read-only. A score of 3 is appropriate as it adds value but lacks some context.

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 two sentences with zero wasted text. The first sentence states the core function and platform, the second lists outputs and importance. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 zero parameters and a complex output (risk score, exposure at multiple thresholds, narrative), the description covers the key elements. However, without seeing the output schema, there might be additional return values not mentioned. Still, the description is sufficient for an AI to understand what the tool does and returns.

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 has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description fully compensates by explaining the tool's purpose and output in detail, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. Baseline is 3, but the description is exemplary in this context.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'tracks collateral-at-risk curves across Morpho Blue markets'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'defi_risk' or 'liquidations' by naming the specific protocol and the exact type of risk assessment (liquidation cascade).

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 states it is 'critical for assessing systemic DeFi risk', providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools, which would be helpful for an AI agent.

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