getRwaProductList

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: a 20 req/s IP rate limit, that the tool sends no authentication, and that the userQuota field is always empty. This is valuable context that helps the agent set expectations and avoid misinterpreting missing data.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose comes first, followed by the rate limit and the authentication/quota caveat. Every sentence adds useful information with no 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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose, main output fields, rate limit, and auth limitation. However, the optional coin parameter is completely undocumented, and there is no output schema to clarify the exact return structure, so an agent would still need to infer or probe some details.

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 only parameter, an optional string named 'coin', is not explained anywhere in the description. With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate for the missing schema documentation but does not mention the parameter's purpose, allowed values, or behavior when omitted.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Query the list of RWA products' and lists concrete fields like base APR, bonus APR, NAV, and stake limits. It is clear enough to distinguish product list queries from RWA order/position/nav sibling tools, though it does not explicitly compare itself to any sibling.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getRwaNavChart, getRwaOrderList, or getRwaPositionList. The description gives rate limit and authentication context but no usage conditions or exclusions.

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