debank_get_protocols

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

The description returns the output structure but lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden but omits these details, though it is clear that the operation is read-only.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line summary followed by Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is front-loaded with purpose, each section earns its place, and there is no wasted text. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 presence of an output schema, the description still provides the output structure, which is helpful. It covers all parameters and use cases. However, it could be more complete by addressing edge cases or behavioral constraints (e.g., empty results, pagination). For a simple get tool with optional params, it is nearly complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter (protocol_id with examples like 'uniswap', chain_id with chain abbreviations, all_chains as boolean) and providing meaningful examples. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema types.

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 DeFi protocol information from DeBank, listing TVL, supported chains, and metadata. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like debank_get_user_protocols (user-specific) and debank_get_chains (only chains), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides multiple examples showing different query patterns (by protocol, by chain, all chains), which implies usage contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to use debank_get_user_protocols instead), nor does it provide when-not or prerequisite guidance.

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