get_best_rwa

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

Despite no annotations, the description explains the scoring criteria (TVL, audits, age) and covers the selection behavior. It could be more explicit about the output format, but the existence of an output schema likely covers that.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences plus a clear usage guideline paragraph. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

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 only 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, selection criteria, types, and usage boundaries. No gaps.

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. The description adds value by listing example protocols (Ondo USDY, BlackRock BUIDL) and explaining the scoring, which helps the agent understand parameter effects.

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 RWA protocol by TVL and risk profile, listing specific protocols and types (t-bills, private credit, real estate). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_best_yield by specifying off-chain vs on-chain yields.

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 when to use ('stable off-chain backed yield') and when not to use ('on-chain DeFi yields'), with a direct reference to the alternative tool (get_best_yield).

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