Veroq

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses 'COST: 2 credits' and details return values in the 'RETURNS' section (total TVL, changes, categories). Does not explicitly confirm read-only status or error behaviors, but cost disclosure adds significant value.

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?

Excellent structural organization with clear headers (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). Every sentence serves a distinct purpose. No redundancy or fluff despite containing multiple informational sections.

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?

Comprehensive for a single-parameter tool lacking output schema. Compensates for missing output schema by detailing return structures in description. Covers cost, usage context, sibling differentiation, and parameter behavior. Nothing critical appears missing.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds practical context with the example JSON '{ "protocol": "aave" }' and explains the dual-mode behavior (overview vs. single protocol) in prose, adding value beyond the schema's technical definitions.

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 opening sentence 'Get DeFi data' is broad, but immediately clarifies with 'No arguments returns TVL overview... pass a slug for one protocol.' It effectively distinguishes from sibling veroq_defi_protocol by specifying this returns overview/basic protocol data versus the sibling's 'deep dive' capability.

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?

Contains explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section stating 'For DeFi TVL data across protocols and chains.' Clearly names the alternative tool: 'Use veroq_defi_protocol for a single protocol deep dive,' providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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