get_health_alerts

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

Annotations confirm read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds critical context: parallel fan-out, per-protocol failure handling via notes field, guarantee that missing protocols are never silently wrong, and return field details (e.g., marginToLiquidation). No annotation contradiction.

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 detailed but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose and then structures details logically. The historical note (#427) is slightly meta but informative. Slightly longer than minimal but well-organized.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists all returned fields (protocol, chain, market, healthFactor, collateralUsd, debtUsd, marginToLiquidation). It covers parameter constraints, error behavior, and cross-protocol scope, making it fully self-contained for a read-only health check tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining wallet (EVM), solanaWallet (Solana), threshold (default 1.5, range implied), and the required at-least-one condition. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 it is a cross-protocol liquidation-risk check, listing specific EVM and Solana protocols. It explicitly mentions the verb 'check' and the resource 'health alerts', and distinguishes from per-protocol position tools like get_compound_positions or get_kamino_positions by aggregating across 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?

The description explicitly requires at least one of wallet or solanaWallet, and explains partial results on failures. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over individual protocol position checkers, though the cross-protocol scope is implied.

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