get_stability_pools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds value by disclosing the specific return fields (snapshotP, snapshotD, snapshotS, epoch, scale) which is critical given the lack of output schema. However, it omits other behavioral traits like data freshness guarantees, read-only safety confirmation, or error conditions. 'Latest' implies real-time data but doesn't specify caching behavior.

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 ('Get') and immediately specifies the resource and scope. The parenthetical listing of return fields adds information density without verbosity. No redundant or wasted language.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description adequately compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating the specific fields returned (snapshotP, snapshotD, snapshotS, epoch, scale). It successfully conveys what data the agent will receive. It could be improved by indicating whether this returns an array or object structure, but the field enumeration provides essential completeness.

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 contains zero parameters (empty object), which per the scoring guidelines establishes a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no filtering parameters are needed by stating it retrieves state 'for each iAsset', confirming the schema structure without needing to enumerate non-existent parameters.

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 retrieves the 'latest stability pool state for each iAsset' with specific technical fields (snapshotP, snapshotD, snapshotS, epoch, scale). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stability_pool_accounts by specifying 'state' versus user accounts, though it could explicitly mention when to prefer this over account-specific queries.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stability_pool_accounts or get_sp_account_by_owner. It lacks prerequisites, filtering capabilities (it retrieves 'each' iAsset suggesting no filtering), or exclusion criteria.

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