defi_analysis

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Returns structured analysis' without specifying output format, data freshness, API dependencies, rate limits, or side effects. For an analysis tool, behavioral traits like real-time vs. historical data or authentication needs are undisclosed.

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 extremely concise (two sentences, ~20 words) with no fluff. Every word contributes to stating the domain and scope. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain the return value structure, valid protocol input formats, or any limitations. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and output format.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds 'TVL, yields, risks, tokenomics' which maps partially to the analysis_type enum, but 'tokenomics' is not an enum value. The description does not clarify how to use protocol as name vs. address or the default chain behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage but limited additional value.

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 analyzes DeFi protocols on specific chains (Base, Ethereum, Solana) and mentions analysis dimensions (TVL, yields, risks, tokenomics). It distinguishes from sibling tools (ai_agent_research, market_research) which are broader. However, the description omits Arbitrum, which appears in the schema, causing minor inconsistency.

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 vs. alternatives (sibling tools). No mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparison with similar research tools. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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