Get coverage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a critical behavioral trait, and 'covers right now' implies the data is a current snapshot rather than historical. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but for a simple read-only coverage query that is acceptable.

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 two sentences and every part earns its place: the first defines the returned metrics, the second gives the use case and flags read-only behavior. There is zero fluff or repetition.

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 tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what the agent needs: what data it returns, when to use it, and that it's non-mutating. It doesn't specify output formatting or behavior with no filters, but those are minor gaps for a coverage-checking tool.

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 already fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage ('Restrict to one chain id' and 'Restrict to one protocol id'), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of checking whether a protocol or chain is in the scored universe adds some semantic context, but it doesn't meaningfully exceed what the schema already provides.

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 exactly what the tool reports—scored vault count, total TVL, composite score spread, and counts by protocol and chain—and ties it to a specific resource (the Atlas Score Index). It also signals how this differs from vault-level queries by positioning it as a pre-check before asking about a vault, making it distinguishable from siblings like get_vault_score or 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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it before asking about a vault to learn whether a protocol or chain is in the scored universe at all.' This tells the agent when to call it. It doesn't name sibling alternatives or explain when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for routing.

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