search_protocols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return fields and ranking by TVL, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether there are rate limits, pagination, or what happens on no matches. It is not misleading but lacks depth for a completely transparent view.

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, front-loaded with the action verb 'Search', and every sentence provides value: the first explains the search and return structure, the second tells how to proceed using the slug. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the search behavior, the result fields, ranking, and the next step with a sibling tool. Minor gaps like handling empty results or result ordering are not critical, and the schema covers 'limit'. Overall, it is enough for an agent to invoke 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 input schema already has 100% description coverage (query and limit both described), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond mapping 'name or symbol' to the query parameter, and the schema already covers examples. No additional parameter semantics are contributed.

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 searches DeFi protocols by name or symbol and returns a ranked list with specified fields (name, symbol, TVL, category, chains, slug). This specific verb+resource+fields structure distinguishes it from siblings, especially get_protocol_tvl which is explicitly referenced.

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 direct usage guidance by telling the user to use the returned slug with get_protocol_tvl for detailed data. This implies the correct sequence of search-then-detail, and distinguishes when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use other siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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