cambrian_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the default detail mode, what response vs full add, that every endpoint detail includes the request schema, that only one of path/tool_name/query should be sent, and what happens when all three are omitted. It does not mention error behaviors or rate limits, but the important call-shaping behaviors are transparent.

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 dense and long, but every sentence contributes routing or detail-mode information. It front-loads the purpose and examples, then explains detail options, then gives fallback rules. There is no filler or tautology.

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?

For a 5-parameter documentation lookup with no output schema, the description covers path construction, detail selection, tool_name vs query disambiguation, chain scoping, and empty-call directory behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly in the common cases.

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%, but the description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics not present in the schema: mutual exclusivity of path/tool_name/query, the directory behavior when all are omitted, EVM chain prefixing, and detail-mode rationale. The path examples also enrich the bare schema descriptions significantly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Cambrian API documentation from docs.cambrian.org/llms.txt.' It clearly identifies this as a documentation/metadata tool rather than a data endpoint, and the concrete path examples remove any ambiguity about what can be fetched.

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 gives explicit routing rules: use tool_name when the exact MCP endpoint tool is known, use query when the path and tool name are unknown, use 'guides/<slug>' for guides, and use evm paths for Base/Ethereum/Arbitrum/Robinhood Chain. It also provides an exclusion: 'do not use full only to get request fields.' This is strong when-to-use guidance.

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