list_top_rwa_protocols

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions returning annotations and gives examples, but does not state data freshness, ordering (descending TVL?), error handling, or pagination for limit parameter. Partial disclosure only.

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, clear and direct. Last sentence listing examples is slightly redundant but not harmful. Could be more concise by removing examples or integrating them. Overall well-structured.

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?

No output schema; description mentions return includes annotations but does not specify the return structure (e.g., list of objects with fields). Also lacks details on ranking order. Incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Input schema has one parameter (limit) with 0% description coverage. Description does not mention limit or its effect. Agent must infer from schema alone. Missed opportunity to clarify that limit controls number of protocols returned.

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?

Description clearly states purpose: list top RWA protocols by TVL, ranked across all chains, with annotations for segment and primary chain. Examples given. Distinguishes from siblings like list_top_protocols (likely general) and list_signed_rwa_attestations.

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?

Implies usage for getting ranked list of top RWA protocols by TVL. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings like get_rwa_protocol_detail or score_protocol_positioning. Contextual but not explicit.

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