get_protocol_state

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose meaningful traits — 'verified' data provenance, a point-in-time snapshot ('at one mainnet slot'), and explicit exclusions ('No inferred CR or price'). It still omits read-only declaration, auth/permission needs, and any rate or freshness caveats, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what is read before the exclusion note. Every clause carries information: resource list, snapshot scope, and the negative constraint.

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 with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the data items returned (mint supplies, virtual stablecoin supply, pause flags) and what is not returned. It could say more about the return shape or units, but it is largely sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming the call needs no arguments.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and enumerates the concrete resources returned: Hylo SPL mint supplies, SOL-pool virtual stablecoin supply, and pause flags. The scope is precise enough to separate it from get_earn_pool_state and get_wallet_exposure, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 clause 'No inferred CR or price' implies the agent should not call this for collateral-ratio or price data, which is a mild when-not signal. However, no alternative tool is named and no positive condition for choosing this tool is given, so usage remains 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.