mantle_list_opportunities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states 'Calls GET /api/opportunities', implying a read-only operation, and mentions filtering/sorting/pagination capabilities. However, it does not disclose return format limits, defaults, or potential side effects, leaving room for more behavioral detail.

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 three short sentences that immediately state the purpose, endpoint, and capabilities. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and capabilities, which is sufficient for selecting the tool. However, it does not describe the return structure (e.g., array of opportunity objects with fields like APY, TVL) or default pagination/sort behavior, which would be needed for full completeness given the absence of an output schema.

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 explains all 8 parameters. The description adds only a general mention of filtering, sorting, and pagination but no per-parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 tool's verb ('List'), resource ('yield opportunities from the Mantle Yield backend'), and specifies the API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mantle_get_opportunity (specific item), mantle_get_summary (summary), and mantle_compare_opportunities (comparison).

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 clearly implies this is the general listing tool with filtering, sorting, and pagination, which is the right choice when you need a paginated list of opportunities. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it, which would warrant a 5.

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