defillama_get_protocols

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it lists protocols, without mentioning any limitations, pagination, or the nature of the output. While 'list' suggests a read-only operation, there is no explicit statement about side effects or data volume.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource clearly.

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?

The description is simple and adequate for a parameterless list tool, but it does not describe the structure of the returned data. With no output schema, a brief mention of what constitutes a 'protocol' (e.g., ID, name, chain) would improve completeness.

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, so the schema already fully documents the input. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource as 'all protocols tracked by DefiLlama', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on TVL, prices, or stablecoins.

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 the tool is for retrieving the full protocol list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as defillama_get_protocol_tvl or defillama_get_chain_tvl. The purpose clarity indirectly suggests usage, but there is no explicit guidance or exclusion.

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