get_best_liquid_staking

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses scoring criteria and output format (one recommendation with reasoning and alternatives). However, it lacks details on data freshness, failure modes, or response time. For a recommendation tool, this is good but not exhaustive.

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?

Description is efficiently structured: main action in first sentence, scoring details, then usage guidance. No superfluous words, all information is relevant 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 the tool has 3 optional parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core purpose, usage context, alternatives, and scoring criteria. It does not detail the return structure, but the output schema compensates. Slight gap in explaining potential limitations or data sources.

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% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds overall context but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool selects the best liquid staking protocol for a given asset and risk profile, lists scoring criteria (TVL, audit count, age, momentum), and enumerates covered protocols. This specificity and verb+resource structure distinguish it from siblings.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this when: an agent needs to stake an asset while keeping it liquid.' and 'Do NOT use for: yield farming (use get_best_yield), restaking (use get_best_restaking).' This provides clear context and alternative tools.

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