Compare vaults

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly says 'Read-only' and discloses a non-obvious behavior: unscored vaults return found:false instead of being silently dropped. It does not describe result ordering details or error cases, but the core behavioral expectations are covered.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the purpose, list the returned fields, state the edge-case behavior, and declare the read-only nature. There is no filler, repetition, or schema duplication.

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 there is no output schema, the description enumerates the output dimensions and the special found:false case, and the input schema fully documents the only parameter. It is complete enough for invocation; minor gaps like ranking direction or exact response envelope are not critical for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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 schema already documents the vaults array, item shape, chainId, address, and the 2-8 bound at 100% coverage, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. It reinforces the range and hints at what the comparison will include, but does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 is explicit about the operation: 'Side-by-side Atlas Scores for 2-8 vaults' with the exact metrics included (composite, label, pillars, APY/TVL, quality scores) and a ranking by composite. The plural scope and 2-8 range clearly differentiate it from single-vault siblings like get_vault_score and explain_vault_score.

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 communicates the intended use case: side-by-side comparison of 2-8 vaults. The boundary is clear and the schema reinforces the min/max counts, but no explicit alternative routing is given (e.g., 'for a single vault use get_vault_score'), making this clear context without formal exclusions.

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