Get Contract Protocol

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing credit cost (5 credits) and the refund policy when no protocol is found, plus the conditional return shape ({protocol} with chain vs {protocols} without). These are exactly the traits an agent needs before spending credits on an open-world lookup.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, invocation context second, behavior/cost last. Every clause carries information a caller needs; nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description still specifies both possible return shapes and the billing outcome, so an agent can call it and interpret the result without further discovery. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by tying the optional chain parameter to a different response shape rather than just repeating 'omit to search every chain.' The contract parameter's accepted formats are left entirely to the schema.

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+resource: 'Identify the DeFi protocol a contract address belongs to.' It also gives concrete call-site examples (spender from octav_get_approvals, transaction counterparty), which distinguishes it from the sibling octav_get_chain_protocols that enumerates protocols for a chain.

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?

Clear context for when to reach for it: after pulling approvals or transactions, to label an address. However, it never explicitly names octav_get_chain_protocols as the alternative for browsing protocols or says when not to use this tool, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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