list_top_protocols

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It confirms a read-only listing but does not disclose any potential limitations, rate limits, or exact sorting behavior (e.g., descending by TVL). Additional behavioral traits like pagination or result format are omitted.

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?

Two sentences with no unnecessary words. First sentence states the core function, second provides a concrete usage guideline. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Tool is low complexity with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers basic intent and usage hint, but lacks specification of output structure (e.g., whether protocols include TVL values) and ordering. Adequate but leaves minor ambiguity.

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 covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (chain has description, limit does not). Description adds default values (Ethereum, top 10) but does not explain limit semantics beyond default. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage and minor additive value.

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?

Clearly states 'Top DeFi protocols by TVL on a given chain' with default Ethereum top 10. Verb 'list' is implied by tool name and description, resource is well-defined, and distinguishes from sibling 'list_top_rwa_protocols' by specifying DeFi versus RWA.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use this for discovery before calling get_protocol_tvl', providing a clear usage context. Does not enumerate when-not to use, but the specific recommendation compensates.

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