read_strategy_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context: paginated return shape, that each strategy carries 7d avg APY for its default range, and the decimal-fraction convention (1.0 = 100%). It omits anything about rate limits or response size ceilings, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the recommended call, then pagination, then the units caveat, then the sibling pointer. Nothing is redundant padding.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: scope of the list, pagination strategy, unit convention for APY, and where to go for depth.

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%, so limit, offset, chain_id and featured_only are already documented; the description only restates the pagination mechanics and the featured_only recommendation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get Arcadia LP strategies') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling read_strategy_info, which handles per-strategy detail. An agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit recommended first call ('featured_only=true for curated top strategies') and names the alternative (read_strategy_info) with the condition that selects it (APY per range width). Covers both when-to-use and waking-the-other-tool.

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