Get one Cardano DeFi venue

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

The description repeats the read-only annotation but adds value by detailing what the record contains. It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but given the simple read-only nature and annotation coverage, the provided details are sufficient.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output contents, the second confirms read-only. Every word serves a purpose.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. It lacks explicit error behavior or a pointer to list_venues, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the read-only annotation.

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%, so the schema already describes the id parameter. The description adds multiple concrete examples ("minswap", "liqwid", "indigo") and the phrase "by id" clarifies the expected input context, going slightly beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource (Get the full taxonomy record) and differentiates from list_venues by focusing on a single venue by id. It also enumerates the fields included (category, url, assets, capabilities, integration level, caveats), which makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage: call this tool when you have a known venue id and need the full record. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_venues for discovering ids or when not to use this tool, leaving the usage context to be inferred.

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