get_latest_collateral

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states 'Public REST', indicating a read-only operation with no authentication, and 'snapshot' further confirms a non-destructive read. The explicit chain constraint also clarifies valid inputs, though it does not detail response structure or potential limitations.

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 nine words, front-loaded with the core function ('Public REST per-chain collateral snapshot') and then specifying constraints. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, read-only), the description adequately covers the purpose and constraints. It does not describe the response format, but for a straightforward snapshot tool with clear input validation, this is a minor gap. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and call 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 only parameter 'chain' is fully enumerated in the schema (tron, eth, bsc), so the description's restatement adds little additional semantic value. It does reinforce the per-chain context, but the schema already specifies the allowed values, leaving the description to simply repeat them.

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 provides a per-chain collateral snapshot, explicitly listing valid chains (tron, eth, bsc). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_collateral_history by emphasizing 'snapshot' versus historical data, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage through 'per-chain snapshot' but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of sibling history tools or alternative collateral tools. There is no direct 'use this for current collateral' guidance, only an implied contrast with historical data.

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