get_protocol_risk_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it discuss authentication, rate limits, or data freshness. For a simple aggregate query, this is acceptable but leaves some gaps.

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 concise: two sentences plus example queries, with no unnecessary words. Every part adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by usage examples.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It could mention the output format or structure, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 only parameter (chain) is fully documented in the schema with an enum and description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states it retrieves aggregate risk statistics for Aave on a chain, listing total positions and danger/warning/critical states. It includes example user queries, making the purpose very specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_at_risk_positions.

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 explicitly says 'Use when asked:' and provides three concrete example queries, giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, which would strengthen the guidance.

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