ponzu_get_addresses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return content but does not mention potential prerequisites (e.g., network configuration) or side effects. As a read-only operation with no parameters, this is minimally adequate.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and immediately states the resource. No wasted words; every phrase adds value.

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 lists several types of addresses returned, compensating for the lack of an output schema. It could be more exhaustive or mention error states, but it is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since no parameters exist. Baseline 4 applies.

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 retrieves all deployed Ponzu protocol contract addresses for a given network, listing specific addresses like factory, DEX, router, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which involve actions like deploying, swapping, or claiming.

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 implies usage when protocol addresses are needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, given its unique purpose among siblings, the context is clear.

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