Lending dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching data (implying a read operation) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple data types and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence listing the fetched data types without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch' and directly states the scope, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 complexity (fetching multiple data types), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and output, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it doesn't mention parameters at all. The two parameters (includeInterest, includeNearUnhealthy) are undocumented in both schema and description. Baseline is 3 due to low parameter count (2) and no schema coverage, but the description adds no value here.

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 fetches multiple lending-related data types (pools, loans, liquidity, collateral, liquidations, safety module state), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from potential sibling tools like 'strato.events' or 'strato.cdp' that might also provide related data, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists what it fetches but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools like 'strato.events' for events or 'strato.cdp' for CDP data, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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