fluid_get_all_vaults

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It states the output (vault addresses and types) but does not disclose any potential caveats like pagination, rate limits, or whether the list is complete across all chains. It is adequate for a simple read-only list operation but lacks depth.

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 primary action and output. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple listing tool without an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but the undocumented rpc_url parameter and lack of any behavioral notes make it slightly incomplete. An agent might need to guess what rpc_url is for and whether the tool requires it for certain chains.

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 only 50%: the 'chain' parameter has a description, but 'rpc_url' is undocumented. The description does not add meaning for either parameter; it only mentions 'on a chain' generically. It fails to clarify the purpose of rpc_url or how it interacts with chain, leaving a significant gap.

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 lists all Fluid vault addresses on a chain, with a specific verb (list), resource (vault addresses), and scope (on a chain). It also mentions the return includes vault types (T1-T4), which differentiates it from sibling tools like fluid_get_all_ftokens and fluid_get_vault_data.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to get all vault addresses for a given chain. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined enough that an agent can infer when it is appropriate, especially compared to more specific vault tools.

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