analyze_protocol_risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that data is pulled live from an external source (DeFiLlama) and merged with Trail Heat scoring, confirming the open-world nature and describing the output shape. It says nothing about latency, rate limits, cost, or freshness, so it adds some but not rich behavioral context.

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 two substantive sentences are tight and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the bracketed prefix ('Capability: available; tier: scout_preview_pioneer_full; API: ...; authority: ...') is opaque metadata that consumes tokens before the actual purpose and does not help an agent select the tool.

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?

With annotations covering safety, full schema coverage on both params, and no output schema, the description supplies the remaining needed context: data sources, the composite grading scale, and that actionable signals are returned. Only the relationship to closely-related sibling tools is left implicit.

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 both protocolId and includeHistorical are already documented with examples and defaults. The description only loosely gestures at 'historical trends', which aligns with includeHistorical but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Deep risk analysis for a DeFi protocol') and enumerates the inputs it aggregates (DeFiLlama TVL, momentum, chain diversification, historical trends) plus the output (composite risk grade low/moderate/elevated/high/critical). This is clearly distinguishable in substance from siblings like get_protocol_risk_factors, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word 'Deep' implies this is the comprehensive option versus lighter siblings such as get_trail_heat or get_protocol_risk_factors, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is left to inference.

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