protocol_facts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists informational content but never states whether the call is read-only, has side effects, or how the data is returned. The word 'facts' weakly implies a safe reference operation, but this is not explicit.

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 compact phrase with no filler, and every listed topic adds meaningful information. It is appropriately short for a zero-parameter tool, though the fragment style lacks a leading verb and is more of a topic list than a structured statement of behavior.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly and anticipate the general content. Gaps include a missing explicit read-only statement and no indication of output format, but the low complexity of a zero-parameter reference tool lowers the completeness burden.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so there is nothing for the description to explain about inputs. The topic list is still useful for interpreting what the unparameterized call will return.

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 enumerates concrete protocol topics — addresses, fee split, LLTV tiers, and flash-loan instructions — so an agent can tell this is the static protocol-reference tool rather than a market or transaction tool. It lacks a direct verb like 'provides' or 'returns,' but the content list makes the resource and scope clear.

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 implies when to use this tool: whenever a user needs protocol-level facts such as addresses, fee splits, or LLTV tiers. However, it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention sibling tools like list_markets or get_market, so some inference is required.

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