protocol_health_scoreboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the data provenance (DefiLlama, TVL > $1M, plus curated protocols) and precisely what fields are omitted (components/history), which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about auth/paywall requirements, rate limits, or ordering.

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 entire description is duplicated verbatim — the same sentence appears twice, wasting roughly half the text. The content is front-loaded and otherwise tight, but the copy-paste repetition is a concrete structural defect.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema listing tool, the description does convey the returned shape (name, score, verdict) and the coverage universe. However, it omits filtering behavior, pagination semantics, and any indication of the paywall boundary implied by 'teaser', leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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%, so all four parameters (limit, offset, min_tvl, category) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (protocol health scoreboard) and scope (full tracked universe, name/score/verdict only). It distinguishes itself from single-protocol siblings like protocol_health_score by saying it covers the whole universe, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'public teaser' and 'no components/history' hints that a richer tier exists, but the description never says when to use this versus protocol_health_score or protocol_health_list_protocols, nor when to avoid it. No explicit routing guidance.

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