get_ftso_providers

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 only describes the return data and parameter, but omits traits like idempotency, rate limits, or error behavior. For a simple read tool, this is minimal.

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, well-structured sentence with no extraneous words. Every part adds value: verb, resource, output fields, and context.

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 a tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No additional information is needed for correct invocation.

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 'network' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying that the network parameter specifies which network to query, and implies the list is scoped to that network. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('list of active FTSO data providers'), and the returned fields (name, address, vote power, fee, reward rate). It also specifies the context ('for the given network'), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_ftso_feed or get_ftso_feeds_all.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., get_ftso_feed, get_ftso_feeds_all). It does not mention exclusions or context-specific scenarios, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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