Find vaults

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses read-only behavior, the return shape (composite, label, live APY/TVL, routable flag, citable URL), the default/max row count, the exclusion rule for unroutable vaults and fallback-scored rows, and a caveat that the ranking is not a recommendation. That is unusually complete behavioral context for an unannotated tool.

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 blueprint-like opening sentence is front-loaded and the routing advice closes the description; every clause carries information (defaults, exclusions, ranking caveat, next step) with no filler or restated title.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe returns and it does so explicitly (fields returned, row cap, citable URL), plus filtering behavior and the safety-adjacent recommendation caveat. Nothing needed to call this seven-parameter tool correctly is missing.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, including the limit default/max and the sortBy enum. The description only restates the asset/chain pairing and the ranking basis, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource and the exact question it answers ("which vaults for this asset on this chain?"), and distinguishes itself from siblings by repositioning the agent to check_route_survival next. An agent can tell it apart from compare_vaults, get_vault_score, and get_coverage without opening any schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit entry condition ("Start here when you do not already have a vault address") and names the follow-up call (check_route_survival) before any deposit. Both when-to-use and the alternative-branch are stated rather than inferred.

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