defi_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It lists what the tool assesses but fails to mention critical behaviors such as whether it is read-only, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like. The output schema exists but its content is not described.

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, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, the second explains parameter usage. No superfluous text.

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 has only one optional parameter and an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description provides a reasonable overview. However, the lack of annotations and behavioral details (e.g., whether the data is real-time, caching, or scope) limits completeness for an AI agent deciding to use it.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining that 'protocol' takes a protocol name for specific assessment or leaves empty for an overview. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema definition, which only shows a string with a default.

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 it performs 'DeFi protocol risk assessment' and lists specific risk factors (TVL, audit status, exploit history, smart contract risk). It also distinguishes behavior based on whether a protocol name is provided or not, making its purpose and scope explicit.

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 provides usage instructions ('Pass protocol name or leave empty for top protocols overview') but does not offer guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like contract_check or token_due_diligence. No exclusions or explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use advice.

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