get_defi_protocol_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (endpoints in a category) but lacks details on behavior: it doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 overly verbose and poorly structured. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, but the rest is a long, repetitive list of endpoint types (e.g., 'TVL data, protocol listings, chain-specific TVL metrics...') that doesn't add value beyond the initial category definition. This wastes space and reduces clarity.

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?

Given the complexity (a tool to retrieve endpoints) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but fails to cover behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or operational constraints. For a tool with no structured data support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, but this is acceptable given the schema's completeness. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, and it avoids misleading param details.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all endpoints in the "DeFi Protocol Analytics" category.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('endpoints') with a clear category scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_token_contract_endpoints' or 'get_onchain_dex_pool_endpoints' beyond the category name, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists the types of endpoints included but doesn't mention sibling tools or specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, such as for DeFi-specific analytics versus general market data. This leaves the agent without explicit usage context.

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