defi_get_perpetual_protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only operation, but offers no additional context about response format, data fields, or any limitations. The description is not misleading but adds minimal transparency beyond the core action.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. Every element (verb, object, qualifier) contributes to the meaning, making it efficiently scannable by an agent.

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 one-parameter getter, the description is adequate but not rich. It does not specify what 'detailed data' includes (e.g., TVL, volume, fees), and with no output schema, the agent cannot predict the return structure. It also omits any reference to related tools for discovering protocol slugs, leaving a gap in workflow context.

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%: the only parameter `protocol` is described with an example slug ('gmx', 'dydx'). The description itself adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 for full schema coverage 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed data for a specific perpetuals protocol'), clearly indicating it targets one protocol rather than a list. The word 'specific' distinguishes it from the sibling `defi_get_perpetuals`, which presumably lists all perpetual protocols.

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 such as `defi_get_perpetuals` or `defi_get_protocol`. It does not mention workflow prerequisites like obtaining protocol slugs from a listing tool, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameter name.

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