compare_protocols

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. Mentions 'Pro tier' indicating potential access restrictions, but does not disclose if the operation is read-only, rate limits, or behavior for invalid inputs.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. Conciseness is appropriate, though it could be expanded slightly for additional context without becoming verbose.

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 exists, and the description does not explain return values or format. Given the complexity of the tool (comparison output) and many siblings, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

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% with a clear description of entity_slugs as comma-separated slugs. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning a baseline of 3.

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 it performs a side-by-side comparison of protocols covering specific metrics (TVL, fees, etc.). The resource (protocols) and action (compare) are clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling comparison tools like get_l2_comparison.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description implies usage for comparison but provides no context for selection.

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