list_protocols

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it 'fans out to all registered subgraph endpoints' and lists live data fields, providing useful behavioral context without contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the action and returned data, second adds fan-out and filtering options. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

The description specifies returned metrics (TVL, deposit/borrow totals, pool counts, user counts) without an output schema, providing sufficient context. Lacks mention of pagination or limits, but the tool lists all protocols so that's acceptable.

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%, and the description adds meaning by specifying exact network values (e.g., MAINNET, MATIC) and the schema version prefix usage, going beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 'List all supported lending protocols' with specific metrics (TVL, deposit/borrow totals, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_protocol' (single) or 'compare_protocols'.

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 explains optional filtering by network or schema version, implying when to narrow results. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools provides enough differentiation.

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