get_web3_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a small trait by saying 'public sources', implying no authentication or private data, but it omits important behavior such as return format, pagination, error handling, or what 'latest' means. This is insufficient transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose. It could be considered slightly under-specified for such a large sibling set, but as a concise purpose statement it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Although the input schema is complete, the tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain behavior and return values. It only states it fetches latest web3 news from public sources; it does not mention what the response looks like, how limit/category affect results, or any pagination/ordering behavior. This leaves the agent without enough context for a tool surrounded by many content-related siblings.

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 100%: limit and category are fully described, including limit's default (5) and category's allowed values (defi, nft, layer2, dao, general). The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and names the resource ('latest web3 news') with a source qualifier ('from public sources'). It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from generic article tools like get_articles and article_list by domain (web3) and source (public). However, it does not explicitly call out an alternative tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or situations where sibling tools like fetch_rss_articles or search_content would be more appropriate. The only implied usage is the purpose itself, which is too weak for a tool with many similar siblings.

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