find_safest_vaults

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 key behavioral traits: the tool returns a limited set ('top 10'), includes quality criteria ('audited, high-confidence'), and sorts by 'risk score'. However, it does not cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists optional filters and output details in a single, well-structured sentence. Every element (e.g., 'top 10', 'audited', 'sorted by risk score') serves a clear purpose without redundancy, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by specifying the return format ('top 10 audited, high-confidence vaults sorted by risk score'). However, it lacks details on output structure, error cases, or behavioral constraints like pagination or rate limits. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured support, it is adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (asset, chain, minTvl) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning these filters as optional but does not provide additional semantics, syntax, or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 the specific action ('Find'), resource ('safest DeFi vaults'), and scope ('highest risk-scored'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_vaults' or 'get_vault' by emphasizing risk-based filtering and ranking. It explicitly mentions the output criteria ('top 10 audited, high-confidence vaults sorted by risk score'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for usage by specifying optional filters (asset, chain, minTvl) and the focus on risk-scored vaults, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_vaults' or 'compare_vaults'. It implies usage for finding high-risk-scored vaults but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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