score_protocol_positioning

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that this is a free (read-only) teardown and returns a scorecard with next action. However, it does not specify authentication needs, behavior on invalid input, or whether it is purely observational. The 'free' label hints at non-destructive action but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads key information ('FREE positioning teardown') and succinctly covers what the tool does and what it returns, including the upsell note.

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 (1 required param, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, output structure (scorecard + next action), and free tier limitation. It lacks explicit mention of the five dimensions but is still mostly complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 single parameter 'protocol_name' is already described in the schema as 'DefiLlama protocol name.' The description adds that it scores a DeFi protocol on 5 dimensions, but no additional parameter-level detail (e.g., format, case-sensitivity, or domain) beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 performs a 'FREE positioning teardown' that 'scores a DeFi protocol on 5 dimensions' and returns a 'structured scorecard + recommended next action.' The verb 'scores' and resource 'DeFi protocol' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like get_protocol_tvl or list_top_protocols.

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 for scoring protocol positioning but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus siblings. It mentions 'free tier' and an upsell CTA, but no direct guidance on exclusion criteria or when a different tool is appropriate.

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