get_savings_status

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

The phrase 'where supported' hints that the tool may not work on all networks, which is a behavioral trait. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The burden falls on the description, but it only offers minimal insight.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be improved by listing typical metrics returned (e.g., APR, total deposits). It hints at network dependency but lacks specifics.

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% (network parameter fully described with enum). The description adds the nuance 'where supported' about network availability but does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and identifies the resource ('USDD Savings metrics'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_chain_metrics by focusing on savings. However, it does not specify what metrics are included, leaving some ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_protocol_metrics or get_protocol_overview). No mention of prerequisites or conditions for use.

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