defi_get_chain_protocols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a simple read operation but does not disclose any behavioral details such as pagination, supported chain values, data recency, rate limits, or whether the list is sorted or limited. For a data-fetching tool, this is a notable gap.

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, concise, and front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word adds value, and it avoids redundancy with the schema. Zero wasted tokens.

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 tool is a simple single-parameter read operation with good schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it might be improved by mentioning default behavior, the format of the returned data, or potential limitations (e.g., only major chains). It is complete enough for the simplest cases but leaves room for interpretation.

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 schema has only one parameter ('chain') with 100% description coverage, so the description adds little beyond what the schema provides. The description clarifies the purpose of the chain parameter (to filter protocols on a specific chain) but does not list valid chain names or provide examples beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema covers the parameter fully.

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 'Get all protocols on a specific chain with their TVL' uses a clear verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('protocols on a specific chain'), and specifies the output includes TVL. It distinguishes itself somewhat from sibling tools like defi_get_protocols or defi_get_chain_tvl, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 usage: when you need protocols on a chain along with TVL. It provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, and there are many closely related DefiLlama sibling tools (defi_get_protocols, defi_get_protocol, defi_get_chain_tvl) that could be confused. Some context is implied by its specific action and parameter, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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