verify_backing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a single snapshot and flash-loanable for one block, warns about the 'lie surface' of price oracles, and notes 'Keyless on Base' (no auth needed). These go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand the result's fragility and access requirements.

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 relatively concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core formula. The information about snapshot, USD avoidance, and keyless access is useful, but the 'lie surface' editorializing is a bit colorful and not strictly necessary. Overall it earns its place but could be slightly tighter.

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 7-parameter schema with full coverage and strong annotations, the description completes the picture by explaining the unit system, snapshot nature, and keyless access. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the formula and 'the verdict says so' give enough context. There is no output schema, so the description partly compensates. A small gap is the lack of an explicit statement of what the return value represents (e.g., a ratio number).

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 provides descriptions for all 7 parameters, giving 100% coverage. The description adds the formula connecting reserve_asset, reserve_holders, and token supply, which clarifies how the parameters relate. However, it does not add per-parameter detail beyond the schema, so the description adds moderate value only. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('re-derive') and resource ('backing ratio') with an explicit formula. It distinguishes from sibling verify tools by focusing on token backing in asset units, not USD. The phrase 'deliberately NOT converted to USD' adds precision and sets it apart from other verification tasks.

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 implies when to use this tool (to check backing ratio in units, on Base, keyless) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It mentions the snapshot limitation and lack of USD conversion, which helps set expectations, but it does not reference sibling tools or say 'when not to use' beyond the USD caveat. This is adequate but not fully explicit.

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