Explain vault score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It explicitly declares read-only behavior, defines the result as the exact engine output at scoredAt, rules out recomputation, and documents the found:false edge case for unscored vaults. These are behavioral guarantees beyond what the input schema could ever convey.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and packs every detail into a dense single sentence without filler. It is slightly run-on, but each clause earns its place by clarifying scope, structure, or behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return semantics on its own, and it does: the factor count, composition, grouping, sub-score fields, weakest-factor summary, staleness semantics, and unscored behavior. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result is left ambiguous.

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%, and both parameters already have strong definitions: address has format and case-insensitivity, chainId has type, exclusivity, and concrete examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a precise verb-resource pair: explaining why a vault has its Atlas Score, and enumerates exactly what is returned (16 factors, sub-scores, weights, raw inputs, labels, grouped by pillar, plus three weakest factors). It clearly separates itself from score-retrieval siblings by emphasizing this is the stored explanation, not a score value or recomputation.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit. The description signals this is for inspecting a previously computed score breakdown ('Exactly what the engine computed at scoredAt, not a recomputation'), but it never names alternatives or states when to pick this over get_vault_score. No exclusions are provided, so an agent must infer the appropriate scenario.

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