Query Protocol Parameters

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description states it can 'write to a file', which modifies the filesystem environment. This directly contradicts the read-only annotation. Without this contradiction, the annotations would have covered safety; as written, the mismatch is serious.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a structured Args/Returns block. The core purpose is front-loaded and every element earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description explicitly states the return format ('Protocol parameters as JSON'). Together with the parameter description and annotations, an agent has enough to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description's Args section repeats the schema's description verbatim. It adds no syntax, format, or example beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Query current protocol parameters.' This clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like cardano_query_pool_params, but the resource name is distinct enough for an agent to distinguish.

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?

Only guidance is the optional file output for fee calculation. There is no explanation of when to use this query versus other query tools (e.g., pool params, treasury) or prerequisites. Usage is left to inference.

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