Surf Fund

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing sub-commands and their parameters, revealing that the tool supports three distinct query modes (detail, portfolio, ranking) with specific filter and sort options. This is meaningful behavioral context not captured by the readOnlyHint.

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 well-structured with a lead-in sentence and a compact command breakdown. It is longer than some but every sentence contributes to understanding tool usage. The command list format is efficient and scannable.

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 multi-command complexity and absence of an output schema, the description provides solid coverage of commands and parameters. It does not detail return values, but the command names and parameter lists give sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden of documenting parameters. It lists all sub-command parameters, types, enums, and defaults (e.g., is_lead, sort_by, order). However, some parameters like 'q' and 'id' lack semantic explanation, leaving minor gaps.

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 what the tool does: 'Use this when the user needs fund data from Surf.' It then enumerates specific capabilities (fund profiles, portfolios, rankings), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on DEX, tokens, etc.

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 opens with an explicit when-to-use statement: 'Use this when the user needs fund data from Surf.' It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling list and domain-specific language make the context clear.

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