Get Data Feed

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the dual-network setup and default network, but it repeats the schema's maxItems limit and does not disclose response format, missing-feed behavior, or error conditions.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, and the network guidance is essential. It loses a point for repeating the maxItems constraint already present in the schema, making the description slightly redundant.

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?

It covers the critical network ambiguity and the basic read semantics, and the annotations cover safety. But it leaves 'ifnone' undefined, gives no hint about the shape of the returned data, and provides no guidance for choosing among the many sibling get/fetch tools.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It explains oracles as oracle addresses, feed_name as a feed name, and network with choices/default. However, the 'ifnone' parameter is not explained at all, and the 10-entry limit merely restates the schema's maxItems constraint.

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 states a specific action ('reads a data feed') and resource ('by oracle addresses and feed name'). It is clear and the 'Raw hub read' hint suggests a low-level operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling read tools such as obyte_get_attestation or obyte_get_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?

It gives explicit operational guidance: the server serves both Obyte networks, the network parameter must be mainnet/testnet, it defaults to mainnet, and the agent should confirm the network when the user has not specified it. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for a raw read.

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