Veroq

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ('2 credits'), return data structure ('Protocol TVL, 1d/7d/30d change percentages, category, and deployed chains'), and implies read-only behavior via 'Get.' However, it lacks explicit mention of rate limits, error conditions, or caching behavior that would constitute exhaustive behavioral disclosure.

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 uses a structured format with clear section headers (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE) that front-load critical information. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose—defining scope, usage conditions, output, cost, and input format—without redundancy or verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single required parameter, no nested objects) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the return values in the RETURNS section. The cost disclosure and example JSON complete the necessary context for an AI agent to invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with the 'protocol' parameter fully documented including examples (aave, uniswap, etc.). The description adds an EXAMPLE section showing JSON structure, but per the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('detailed DeFi protocol data') along with specific data points (TVL, chain deployment, performance changes). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'veroq_defi' by stating this is for 'a deep dive into a single DeFi protocol' versus the 'full DeFi market overview'.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides explicit guidance: 'For a deep dive into a single DeFi protocol' and explicitly names the alternative tool 'veroq_defi (no args) for the full DeFi market overview.' This clearly delineates when to use this tool versus its sibling.

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