get_protocol_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (Comptroller config, close factor, etc.) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or scope of data (e.g., whether it covers all networks or just the specified one). Given the annotations are strong, the description is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Get JustLend protocol-level info') and lists key contents. Every word is functional with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, comprehensive annotations), the description is complete enough. It clarifies the scope (protocol-level vs. market-level) and specifies the fields returned. Minor improvement could include noting that results are for a given network, but the schema already addresses that.

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 one parameter (network) with a description ('Network. Default: mainnet'), providing 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond that. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves JustLend protocol-level information including specific fields (Comptroller config, close factor, liquidation incentive, total markets). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('protocol-level info'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_market_data which focus on individual markets.

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 this tool is for protocol-level summary data via the phrase 'protocol-level info', but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_market_data or get_all_markets. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided. Usage is inferred but not directly guided.

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