compare_lst_providers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only comparison by saying 'shows APY, rates, features, and recommendations,' which implies no side effects. However, it does not describe how recommendations are determined, whether live data is fetched, or any limitations beyond the listed output.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and expected outputs without excess words. Every component adds useful information, and there is no padding 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 simple, optional-parameter tool, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the providers, the output categories, and the recommendation aspect. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by listing what the tool shows, though details about return format or recommendation criteria are not provided.

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%, with a single optional network parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the network parameter or its default behavior, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Compare'), a clear resource ('NEAR liquid staking providers'), and names the providers (Meta Pool, Linear). It also lists what the tool shows: APY, rates, features, and recommendations. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like get_lst_balance or get_staking_apy.

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 this tool is for comparing providers, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings such as get_staking_apy or lst_defi_options. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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