defi_get_oracles

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the high-level purpose without disclosing output format, whether it returns a list, how data is aggregated, or any potential limitations. The description does not add behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 efficiently states the purpose and a clarifying detail. No wasted words.

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 parameters and no output schema, so the description must clarify the response shape. It gives a general idea (oracle TVL data, protocols secured by oracles) but leaves ambiguity about whether the output is a list of oracles, protocols, or a mapping between them. For a zero-param tool, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is trivially complete, and the baseline is 4. The description clarifies what the tool returns (TVL data per oracle/protocol), which adds meaning about the data scope, but there are no parameters to elaborate on.

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 clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('oracle TVL data'), and the explanatory phrase 'protocols secured by different price oracles' distinguishes this from other Defi tools that focus on overall protocol TVL or chain TVL. It doesn't specify the exact response structure, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus other Defi tools like defi_get_protocol_tvl or defi_get_chain_tvl. It lacks any comparison, context, or exclusions, so an agent has no guidance on selecting this over siblings.

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