get_interest_oracle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly identifies the operation as a read ('Read the current...') and discloses what the caller will receive, including on-chain rate, accumulator, and timestamp. It does not mention failure modes or side effects, but for a read-only state query the key behavioral trait is clearly conveyed.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned fields. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant or boilerplate 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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, this description is sufficiently complete. It names the entity being queried, the accepted parameter scope, and the exact return fields. The annotation and schema gap are adequately covered because the description communicates the essential invocation context and expected result.

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 single 'asset' parameter is not described in the schema, and the description only says 'for an asset' without elaborating on valid values. However, the schema provides an explicit enum of asset identifiers, which makes the allowed inputs self-documenting. The description adds marginal meaning by indicating the resulting state is asset-specific, but it does not substantially compensate for the lack of schema description coverage.

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 states a precise verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('interest oracle state for an asset'), and enumerates the exact data returned: interest rate, unitary interest accumulator, and last-updated timestamp. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like feed_interest_oracle, which writes oracle state, or get_oracle_price, which reads price data.

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 read-only nature of the tool is clear from 'Read the current interest oracle state,' so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as pointing to feed_interest_oracle for updating the oracle or get_oracle_price for price queries. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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