get_protocol_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'aggregated protocol metrics from website data' without disclosing whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what exactly is returned. The description is too vague to inform safe invocation.

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 sentence of 9 words, which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the brevity omits crucial context that would justify its length.

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 no output schema and many siblings, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'protocol metrics' includes, what 'website data' means, or what the response format is. This leads to ambiguity for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 description coverage is 100% trivially. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero parameters. The description does not add parameter-level information but is not expected to since none exist.

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 gets 'aggregated protocol metrics from website data (mainnet)', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chain_metrics or get_protocol_overview by specifying 'aggregated' and 'from website data', even though it does not explicitly compare them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., get_chain_metrics, get_protocol_overview). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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