defi_get_protocol

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It conveys that this is a read-only data retrieval and specifies the type of data included (TVL by chain/token, historical data). However, it omits details about authentication, rate limits, or the exact response structure, which leaves some uncertainty.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the main action and object, and contains no filler. Every phrase adds meaning.

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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description adequately covers the purpose and the scope of returned data. Minor gaps such as the exact time range for historical data or response formatting are acceptable given the low complexity, but the absence of annotations and output schema means a bit more context would be helpful.

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 single parameter 'protocol' is fully described in the schema with examples ('aave', 'uniswap', 'lido'), providing 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter-specific semantics beyond confirming it is a specific protocol.

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 clearly states it retrieves detailed information about a specific DeFi protocol, including TVL breakdowns and historical data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like defi_get_protocols (which lists protocols) and defi_get_protocol_tvl (which focuses only on TVL).

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 for a single protocol of interest, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over defi_get_protocol_tvl or defi_get_protocols. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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