get_vault_risk_breakdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a 'detailed breakdown' with three score types, but doesn't specify output format (e.g., structured data, text summary), potential errors (e.g., invalid address handling), rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get a detailed breakdown') and lists key components. There's no wasted text, and it directly communicates the tool's function. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for clarity) but remains highly concise.

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 moderate complexity (risk analysis with multiple score types), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context on behavioral aspects would improve completeness for safe agent use.

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%, with both parameters ('network', 'address') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of valid network slugs beyond 'ethereum', no clarification on address format). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get a detailed breakdown') and resources ('vault's risk vectors'), listing the three main components (Asset Composition, Platform Code, Governance scores). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_vault' or 'explain_risk_score' by focusing on risk breakdown rather than general vault data or score explanations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'compare_vaults' also involves risk analysis).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific vault address), exclusions (e.g., not for comparing multiple vaults), or direct comparisons to sibling tools like 'explain_risk_score' (for detailed score explanations) or 'compare_vaults' (for multi-vault analysis). Usage is implied only through the tool name and description context.

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