deso_api_explorer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'backend implementation details' and 'deso-js SDK integration' which suggests it might provide implementation insights, but doesn't clarify what 'explorer' actually does - is it read-only documentation browsing, interactive testing, or something else? It doesn't address permissions, rate limits, side effects, or response format, which are critical for a tool with 'API' in its name.

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, efficient sentence that packs multiple concepts. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and establishes the core purpose upfront. However, it could be more front-loaded by starting with the primary action ('Explore DeSo APIs') before mentioning implementation details.

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?

For an API exploration tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (documentation, interactive interface, code snippets?), how results are structured, or what 'comprehensive' means in practice. With no annotations and siblings that might overlap, more context about the exploration mechanism and output format is needed for the agent to use this effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly with descriptions and an enum for 'category'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of endpoint names, or clarify what 'includeCode' examples might look like. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states this is a 'Comprehensive DeSo API explorer' which indicates it explores APIs, but it's vague about what 'explore' means - does it list endpoints, test them, or provide documentation? It mentions 'backend implementation details and deso-js SDK integration' which adds some specificity but doesn't clearly distinguish it from siblings like 'deso_js_guide' or 'explain_deso_architecture'. The verb 'explore' is imprecise compared to more specific alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the seven sibling tools. The description doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases. With siblings like 'deso_js_guide', 'explain_deso_architecture', and 'generate_deso_code' that might overlap in API-related functionality, the absence of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate selection contexts.

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