get_mev_protection_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it 'gets information', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose what the response contains, whether any network-specific caveats exist, or what 'MEV protection options' entails. This is minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the name.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no unnecessary information, making it highly efficient and easy parse.

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?

This is a simple informational tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description is sufficient for basic understanding, but it lacks detail about the nature of the returned options or any network-specific behavior. Given the low complexity, the description is adequate but not rich; a slightly more detailed explanation of what 'MEV protection options' include would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the 'network' parameter is well documented in the schema with examples and a default. The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond referencing 'a network', which is already captured in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'information about available MEV protection options for a network'. It is specific enough to indicate the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like check_mev_exposure or send_private_transaction. The network scope is evident, making the purpose clear but not differentiated.

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, nor any exclusion criteria or context. There is no mention of related tools or scenarios where this would be the preferred choice, leaving the agent without usage guidance.

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