get_signed_root

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool gets a root, implying a read-only operation, but does not describe return format, error behavior, required inputs, or any side effects. The mention of 'epoch' adds slight context but leaves much to be inferred.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no padding. It packs the key information (action, resource, source, and time scope) into a compact form. It could be improved with a little more structure, but as written it is concise 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter info, the description is insufficiently complete. It gives no indication of what the returned root looks like, how to interpret the epoch, or how the optional parameters affect the call. This is especially problematic for a tool that may require context about the MedianFeeds protocol.

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 schema has three parameters (chain, rpcUrl, contractAddress) with zero schema description coverage (0%). The description does not mention any of these parameters or how they influence the request. The agent receives no help understanding what values to pass, defaults, or optionality, making this a significant gap.

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 exact operation: 'Get current signed Merkle tree root (epoch) from MedianFeeds'. It specifies the verb (get), the resource (signed Merkle tree root), and the scope (current epoch from MedianFeeds). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_health or quote_metrics, which serve different purposes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and one-line description.

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