get_marginfi_diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral details: snapshots most recent fetchGroupData pass, warms cache on demand, describes output fields including recovery from raw bytes. No contradictions.

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 thorough but slightly verbose (e.g., details about SDK version and IDL version). However, it is well-structured with purpose, return details, usage guidance, and cache behavior. Every sentence adds value, so it earns a high score.

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 (diagnostic for a specific client), empty schema, and no output schema, the description fully explains purpose, usage context, output details, and behavioral traits. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Description explicitly confirms 'No input args.' The description cannot add more meaning because there are no parameters to describe.

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 diagnostic surface for the hardened MarginFi client load, returning a list of skipped banks with detailed fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like prepare_marginfi_* and get_marginfi_positions by focusing on diagnostics rather than operations or position queries.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: call when prepare_marginfi_* reports a mint is missed. Explains tool behavior—either names the skipped bank with cause or confirms mint not in group. No mention of when not to use, but context is clear.

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