get_public_protocol_overview_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but only states that it is a 'public REST protocol overview' with 24h daily-change fields. It does not disclose return format, pagination, or any access requirements.

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 concise 7-word phrase that is front-loaded with the key identifier. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it reads as a fragment rather than a full sentence.

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 simple zero-parameter signature, the description conveys the basic nature, but the proximity of a sibling tool with the same root name means more context is needed to disambiguate. The mention of '24h daily-change fields' partially addresses this.

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 takes zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail but none is needed.

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 'Public REST protocol overview with 24h daily-change fields' clearly identifies the resource as a protocol overview and adds a differentiating scope (24h daily-change fields) relative to sibling get_public_protocol_overview. However, the verb is implicit and the term 'info' is not fully clarified.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs the nearly identically named sibling get_public_protocol_overview. It does not state alternatives or exclusions.

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