get_marginfi_diagnostics

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

Starts with 'READ-ONLY', aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true). Adds rich behavioral context: cache warming, snapshot freshness, skip steps, error reason. 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?

Description is somewhat long but well-structured, front-loading with key info. Every sentence adds value; could be slightly shorter but remains efficient.

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 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, description covers purpose, behavior, return fields, use case, and caching. Complete for a diagnostic 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?

No parameters; description explicitly says 'No input args', which is helpful confirmation. Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds value by clarifying there are no required inputs.

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's a read-only diagnostic tool for MarginFi, returning skipped banks with details. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it should be called when prepare_marginfi_* reports a missed mint, and it names the data fields explicitly.

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?

Description gives a clear trigger for use (when a mint is missed) and explains the cache behavior. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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