List live PoX-5 protocol bonds

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description adds that it scans a 'bounded window' and returns only 'on-chain configured bonds', clarifying filtering and scope. It does not detail pagination or rate limits but provides meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action, no redundant content.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with three optional parameters and an output schema. The description covers core purpose but omits parameter explanations and usage guidance; annotations cover safety, but the description is too lean for a complete understanding.

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 0%. The description's mention of a 'bounded window' hints at the lookback/lookahead parameters but does not explain their semantics or the network parameter. With zero parameter descriptions in schema, the description fails to compensate.

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 action ('Scan', 'return') and the resource ('PoX-5 window', 'on-chain configured bonds'). The phrase 'on-chain configured bonds' differentiates it from generic list_bonds and get_bond siblings.

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 implies use for a bounded time window of PoX-5 bonds but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_bonds or specify when to use this over alternatives.

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