get_protocol_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, destructive=false, openWorld; the description adds the important caveat that discovery_heuristic_score is a catalog editorial heuristic and NOT live Trail Heat — preventing a real misinterpretation. The bracketed capability/tier/API/authority prefix is internal plumbing rather than useful 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?

It is one sentence with no filler in the body, but the leading bracketed "Capability/tier/API/authority" block consumes the most prominent position with infrastructure detail an agent cannot act on, pushing the actual purpose later.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by listing the five field groups and clarifying the semantics of the heuristic score. Missing only notes on failure behavior when protocolId is unknown.

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?

A single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already establishes protocolId's meaning and format example. The description adds nothing about ID sourcing or valid forms beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("get catalog metadata for a specific DeFi protocol") and enumerates the returned fields: status, chains, description, tags, discovery_heuristic_score. It also differentiates itself from a sibling by naming get_trail_heat as the source of canonical scores.

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?

Clearly framed as research/discovery metadata and routes the agent to get_trail_heat for canonical live scores, which is a genuine use-vs-alternative signal. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_protocol_risk_factors or analyze_protocol_risk instead).

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