get_protocol_tvl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the full set of return data (current TVL, chain distribution, change percentages, category, description, website, sampled history), which is significant behavioral detail. It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or pagination, but for a read-only get tool, the output specification is strong.

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 well-structured sentences: the first states the purpose and return fields, the second provides a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant words.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is comprehensive: it explains the input requirement, the return payload, and the prerequisite to find the slug. The level of detail is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without further context.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage, including examples and the instruction to use search_protocols. The tool description repeats this guidance without adding new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed TVL breakdown for a specific DeFi protocol by slug,' listing the exact data returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_tvl_by_chain (chain-level vs protocol-level) and search_protocols (search vs retrieval).

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Use search_protocols to find the slug first,' providing a clear prerequisite and directing to the correct tool for finding slugs. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with get_tvl_by_chain, but the protocol-specific scope is implied.

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