Get Chain Protocols

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world tool. The description adds useful behavioral details: results are paginated, the response indicates whether more pages exist, and the call is free with no credits required.

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 compact and front-loaded around what is listed, why the keys matter, and pagination/cost behavior. Every phrase adds useful information without repetition.

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 simple read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description explains the returned content and pagination behavior sufficiently. It could say more about the exact response shape, but the essential context for correct invocation is present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents chain, page, and limit including defaults and bounds. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb and resource: list DeFi protocols tracked by Octav on a given chain. It also explains that the returned keys are used by the protocol filter on octav_get_transactions, which separates this tool from generic transaction or chain-listing tools.

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 gives a clear use context by saying the protocol keys are used by the protocol filter on octav_get_transactions. It does not explicitly name when not to use this tool or contrast it with octav_get_contract_protocol, so it falls short of fully explicit alternative guidance.

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