sodax_get_partners

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to cover those. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the listed scope. It is consistent with annotations, earning a baseline score.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No extraneous information is included, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the output scope (partners including wallets, DEXs, protocols) and the format parameter implies structured output. However, it does not explicitly state that the response may vary by chainId or describe the expected data fields, leaving minor gaps.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (format and chainId). The description does not elaborate on these parameters beyond what the schema already states, so it adds no extra value. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score is 3.

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 lists all SODAX integration partners, specifying categories like wallets, DEXs, and other protocols. It is distinct from sibling tools, such as sodax_get_partner_summary, which provides a summary rather than a full list.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like sodax_get_partner_summary or sodax_get_supported_chains, nor does it specify context such as prerequisites or dependencies.

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