get_risk_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns transitions between risk states and includes health factor and timestamp. However, it omits details like ordering, pagination limits, and whether alerts are real-time or historical, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and then adding example queries. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields (previous/new risk level, health factor, timestamp). It covers the primary use case but lacks details on ordering, alert age, or how to interpret missing data.

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 baseline is 3. The description implicitly references the 'chain' parameter (e.g., Polygon) and 'userAddress' (wallet filter), adding some context beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on the 'first' parameter, which remains default-driven.

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 recent risk level transitions and lists specific fields (previous/new risk level, health factor, timestamp). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from generic risk queries, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_at_risk_positions or get_health_factor_history.

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 provides three concrete example queries covering common user intents ('Which positions recently became at risk?', 'Show me health factor drops on Polygon', 'Has wallet 0x... had any risk alerts?'). This gives clear usage context, though it does not specify when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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