get_platform_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions 'Base L2' indicating blockchain context, it fails to disclose whether this is read-only, what specific protocol data is returned (addresses, versions, parameters), or any authentication requirements.

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?

Extremely concise at only seven words. The information is front-loaded and there is no repetition of structured data, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a complex blockchain protocol tool.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, and given the complexity of L2 protocol interactions, the description is insufficient. 'Get info' is too vague—it should specify what platform information is retrieved (e.g., contract addresses, protocol version, supported features).

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?

The input schema has zero parameters. Per scoring rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline of 4 since there are no parameter semantics to describe beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get info') and identifies the specific resource ('Loyal Spark protocol') and context ('Base L2'). It distinguishes from siblings by targeting the protocol infrastructure rather than specific loyalty programs or operations.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus other tools. Given siblings like get_my_profile or get_token_balance, the agent would benefit from knowing whether this returns global protocol metadata or user-specific data.

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