get_all_cdps

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior. 'Get all CDPs' implies a read-only query, but it does not mention pagination even though the schema includes limit/offset, nor does it describe the response shape or potential scale/cost of fetching all CDPs. No contradiction exists, but meaningful behavioral context is missing.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the core operation and its main optional modifier with no filler. It is concise without being a tautology.

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?

Despite low tool complexity, the description is incomplete for a paginated getter with no output schema and no annotations. The claim 'Get all CDPs' is at odds with the limit/offset parameters (default limit 50, max 500), and no guidance is given about response format or distinguishing this from sibling getters. An agent could easily mistake this for returning every CDP in one call.

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 description adds the meaning that the asset parameter is an optional iAsset filter, which is useful. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain limit/offset or the implications of 'all' combined with pagination, so it only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 and resource ('Get all CDPs') and adds an optional filter by iAsset, making the tool's scope clear. It also distinguishes this from sibling owner/address-specific getters like get_cdps_by_owner and get_cdps_by_address.

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 implies a use case: list all CDPs rather than CDPs for a specific owner/address, and optionally filter by asset. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_cdps_by_owner or get_cdps_by_address, leaving routing mostly to inference.

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