get_lending_protocols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not clarify response format, pagination, or any side effects. For a simple getter, this is acceptable but lacks deeper context.

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 with no superfluous content. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope, earning the maximum score for conciseness and structure.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what is returned (a list of supported lending protocols) and the context (network). Although it does not detail the output format, the description is adequate for its simplicity.

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 covers the network parameter fully with examples, default value, and explanation. The description's 'on a network' aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get list of supported lending protocols on a network' with a specific verb (Get), resource (list of protocols), and scope (network). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_lending_rates, which focuses on rates, and defi_get_protocols, which covers all DeFi 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 implies usage when needing a list of lending protocols for a given network but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, such as get_lending_rates or defi_get_protocols. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is minimal.

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