get_health_alerts

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: parallel fan-out, default threshold, return fields, and error handling with notes. Annotations already indicate read-only, but description enriches with details about partial failures and issue reference.

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?

Description is moderately long but well-structured, starting with purpose, then behavior, then parameters. Every sentence provides value, though some minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 no output schema, description covers return fields, failure modes, and parameter constraints adequately. It provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior without 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, but description adds meaning for all 3 parameters: specifies that at least one of wallet/solanaWallet is required (logical constraint), provides default for threshold, and implies the role of each wallet parameter. This compensates well for lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it performs a cross-protocol liquidation-risk check, listing the protocols and returning positions with health factor below threshold. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_compound_positions or get_kamino_positions by aggregating across multiple 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?

Explicitly notes read-only nature, requirement for at least one wallet parameter, and explains partial results on per-protocol failures. While it doesn't list alternative tools, the context of sibling tools for individual protocols implies when to use this aggregate version.

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