get_ftso_anchor_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the key behavior: the tool returns a price plus a Merkle proof, verifies the proof locally against the Relay root, and defaults to the latest finalized round. It does not cover error cases or response formatting, but for a read-style fetch this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and key differentiating detail. Each sentence adds useful information, with no filler, though the protocol-specific jargon may make it slightly dense for an unfamiliar agent.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a strong summary of the returned artifact and trust model, but leaves gaps around parameter formats and the exact response shape. It is adequate for a caller who already understands the FTSO Scaling domain, but not fully self-sufficient for a generic agent.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate. It only indirectly explains voting_round_id via 'Defaults to the latest finalized round.' The meanings and accepted formats of feed_id and network are left entirely to inference, which is a significant gap given three parameters and no 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get ... FTSO Scaling anchor feed') and immediately distinguishes it from ordinary feeds by highlighting the proof-carrying Merkle proof verified against the on-chain Relay root. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like get_ftso_feed and get_ftso_history.

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 gives a clear use case: when an agent or smart contract needs a trust-minimized feed and should not trust the DA API. It also notes the default to the latest finalized round, which helps callers decide when to pass voting_round_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the framing is sufficient.

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