risk_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the API key requirement (auth needs), explains what gets returned (overall grade + breakdown scores with explanations), and describes different behaviors for pools vs protocols. It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence states core purpose, second describes return format, third explains protocol-specific behavior, fourth notes API requirement. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and key information (purpose and PRO requirement) is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (risk scoring with multiple dimensions), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It explains the scoring components, different behaviors for pools vs protocols, and authentication requirements. The output schema will handle return value details, so the description appropriately focuses on behavioral context. It could mention error cases or limitations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 2 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining that 'pool_id' is for 'specific pool' and 'protocol' is for 'entire protocol', and that for protocols it 'scores the top pools and returns an aggregate grade'. This adds meaningful semantic context about how each parameter affects the tool's behavior, though it doesn't specify format requirements for these string parameters.

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 'Get risk grade (A-F) for a specific pool or entire protocol' with specific verb ('Get'), resource ('risk grade'), and scope ('pool or entire protocol'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_pool' or 'defi_overview' by focusing specifically on risk scoring with letter grades and detailed breakdown components.

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 clear context: use for risk assessment of pools or protocols, with different behaviors for each (aggregate grade for protocols). It mentions 'PRO ONLY — requires PROFITSPOT_API_KEY' as a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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