debank_get_user_protocols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the return structure and explains 'simple' vs 'complex' levels, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. It is read-only by implication but not explicitly stated.

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 clear sections (Args, Returns, Details, Examples) and each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by merging example lines, but overall it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, the description explains parameters and return types adequately. However, it lacks edge case handling, error scenarios, prerequisites (like API keys), and does not position itself among sibling tools. Missing contextual completeness for a complex DeBank tool.

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 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: address (required), protocol_id (optional), chain_id (optional, default null meaning all chains), detail_level (enum with defaults). It also explains return values for each detail level and provides concrete examples, adding significant meaning beyond the raw 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 'Get user's DeFi protocol positions from DeBank.' It specifies the main function with a verb and resource, and examples distinguish it from sibling tools like debank_get_user_balance or debank_get_user_tokens by focusing on protocol-level positions.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for specific needs, such as using debank_get_user_tokens for simple token balances.

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