get_protocol_risk_score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds critical context: the tool surfaces data, does not endorse or pick tokens, and clarifies what a high score means (contract safety, not investment upside). No contradiction with annotations.

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 longer than average but well-structured with clear sections (SCOPE, AGENT BEHAVIOR). Every sentence adds value, though some repetition could be trimmed. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and the description fully explains the return value (0-100 score, higher safer), the factors considered, and the intended use cases. Covers all necessary context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter 'protocol'. The description fully compensates: explains it's a DefiLlama slug, works across chains, and provides concrete examples (Solana, Tron, EVM). Makes the parameter unambiguous.

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 returns a 0-100 risk score for a DeFi protocol based on multiple factors (TVL, trend, age, audits, bug bounty). It specifies the protocol argument as a DefiLlama slug and gives examples across chains, distinguishing it from any sibling tool like check_contract_security or get_coin_price.

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?

Explicit guidance: use for protocol due-diligence (e.g., comparing Aave V3 vs Compound V3), and explicitly warns against using for speculative token picks. Provides clear 'do NOT use' scenarios and explains what the score does and does not indicate.

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