koios_pool_calidus_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Saying 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but no information is given about response format, pagination behavior, error handling, rate limits, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure, similar to the 'update_drive' example where the description doesn't compensate for absent annotations.

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 sentence of six words, front-loaded with the action 'Get'. It is appropriately short for a simple lookup tool and contains no filler. However, it is almost too terse, omitting any elaboration that could aid understanding, so it stays just below a perfect score.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not explain what Calidus keys are or what the response contains. Despite being a simple read operation, the lack of context makes it hard for an agent to fully understand the tool's place among many pool-related siblings. With low complexity, the description is incomplete in conveying the full picture.

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 each parameter (limit, order, offset, select) having a clear description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema already documents them, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify how these parameters interact with the specific Calidus keys resource.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'Calidus keys for stake pools', clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings by naming a unique resource (Calidus keys) not mentioned in any other tool description. However, it does not explain what Calidus keys are, which could reduce clarity for an unfamiliar agent.

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. There are many pool-related sibling tools (e.g., pool_info, pool_relays, pool_metadata), but no exclusions or comparison are mentioned. The agent is left to infer applicability based solely on the resource name.

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