get_publisher_stake_caps

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 only states what data is retrieved ('most recent publisher stake caps data') without mentioning any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'most recent' entails (e.g., time-based or event-based). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 of retrieving network data with three parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'publisher stake caps data' entails, how the data is structured, or any behavioral aspects like latency or data freshness. Without this context, the agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (encoding, parsed, include_binary). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these parameters affect the returned data. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('most recent publisher stake caps data from Pyth Network'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like get_latest_price_updates or get_price_feeds), which all seem to retrieve different types of Pyth Network data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose. This lack of guidance makes it harder to choose between sibling tools effectively.

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