get_defi_protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the data source (DefiLlama) and 'Free tier', which hints at cost but does not disclose rate limits, required permissions, or whether it is read-only (though implied).

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 conveying purpose, metrics, source, and cost tier. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description lists key metrics (TVL, chains, volume, fees) that hint at the return structure, which is sufficient for a simple snapshot. However, it could mention pagination or data format for completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description provides an example ('aave', 'uniswap'), which mostly mirrors the schema's own description. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema.

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 provides a 'DeFi protocol snapshot' with specific metrics (TVL, chains, volume, fees), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on prices, sentiment, or other data. The verb 'get' and resource 'defi_protocol' are specific.

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 like compare_protocols or get_tokenomics. The description implies usage for a protocol overview but doesn't mention exclusion or context.

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