addresses_getProtocol

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

No annotations provided, but description fully explains the tool returns contract addresses, gives concrete examples, and notes that infrastructure protocols have same address on all chains. No mention of authentication or rate limits, but sufficient for a read-only tool.

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?

Well-structured with clear purpose sentence, then examples, then organized lists of supported protocols. Slightly long but front-loaded and each part adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description effectively explains return values with examples and distinguishes between per-chain protocols and infrastructure that is same across chains. Covers the complexity well.

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%, but description adds value by listing specific valid protocol names per chain and giving example return values, extending beyond the schema's simple property descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Get contract addresses for a DeFi protocol on a specific chain.' Provides examples and lists supported protocols per chain, distinguishing it from sibling tools like addresses_getToken and addresses_listProtocols.

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?

Extensive examples and supported protocol lists per chain give clear context, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond listing protocols.

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