get_public_protocol_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey the read-only, non-destructive nature of the tool. The word 'overview' and the listed data fields implicitly indicate a read operation, but it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or disclose any potential latency, caching, or data freshness. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the resource and lists the key fields. There is no redundancy or filler, and it is appropriately sized for a simple overview tool.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description need not explain returns in detail. The listed fields provide some clarity, but the sibling tool get_public_protocol_overview_info suggests a potential distinction between overview and info that is not addressed. The description is minimally complete but leaves some ambiguity about the exact response structure.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 identifies the resource as 'Public REST protocol overview' and enumerates the contained fields (total supply, TVL, Earn TVL, APY). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_earn_apy or get_total_supply, which target individual fields. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieves') and does not clarify the distinction from the similarly named get_public_protocol_overview_info.

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 usage context is implied by the word 'overview' and the combined fields, suggesting it is meant for a high-level summary. No explicit 'use this when' or alternatives are mentioned. Sibling tools like get_earn_apy or get_total_supply are not referenced, so guidance is minimal but not entirely absent.

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