get_staking_protocols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that it gets a list of popular staking protocols, but does not describe the output format, whether the list is sorted, what 'popular' means, or any network-specific behavior. The schema indicates a 'network' parameter with a default, but the description does not mention that this is a read-only operation or what data is returned.

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, short sentence (8 words) and is front-loaded with the essential purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no redundant information or filler.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter) and has no output schema. The description conveys the core action but lacks specifics about the return value (e.g., protocol names vs. details) and leaves 'popular' undefined. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive documentation for the 'network' parameter, including examples and a default value (100% schema_description_coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond connecting the parameter to 'on a network', so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('list of popular staking protocols') with scope ('on a network'). It is clear and distinguishes itself from specific staking action tools like get_staking_apr or get_staking_position, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar list tools like get_lending_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like get_staking_apr, get_staking_position, and defi_get_protocols exist, but the description does not mention them or clarify when this tool is preferred. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'Get'.

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