mantle_get_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), implies a safe read operation, and enumerates the exact response fields (opportunitiesTracked, protocols, assetsIndexed, lastSync, status). This provides meaningful behavioral transparency, though it does not discuss potential errors or auth requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the endpoint, and lists return fields without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately scannable.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is well-rounded: it names the endpoint, lists the key output fields, and clearly communicates what the tool returns. It lacks only minor context such as the overall value of the summary (e.g., 'overview of all opportunities') but is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, so the schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is nothing to document. Per the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4; the description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, which is appropriate.

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 verb (Get), the resource (Mantle Yield dashboard summary), and the specific endpoint (GET /api/summary), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mantle_get_health and mantle_get_opportunity. The list of returned fields further clarifies its scope.

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 usage is implied by the name and description: use this to obtain the high-level dashboard summary. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings (e.g., 'use mantle_list_opportunities for detailed opportunity data') or any exclusion criteria.

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