defi_get_protocols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output scope ('all protocols') and sort behavior ('sorted by TVL'), but fails to mention pagination, response size limits, data freshness, or any other operational caveats that would be useful for an agent.

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, clearly front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and key output characteristics without any filler. Every word contributes 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?

The description identifies the main outputs and sort order, but since there is no output schema and no mention of pagination, response format, or how 'comprehensive' is scoped, an agent may not know how to process the returned data or if it is bounded. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is vacuously 100%; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance because none is needed, and the listed fields (TVL, chains, categories) describe the output, not inputs.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource ('list of all DeFi protocols'), enumerating the returned data fields (TVL, chains, categories) and the sort order. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `defi_get_protocol` (singular) and `defi_get_chain_protocols` (chain-specific).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or name related tools like `defi_get_protocol`, `defi_get_chain_protocols`, or `defi_get_yields`, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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