get_market_incident_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (per-market flags, utilization, supply/borrow, flagged bit, incident) and the criteria for flagging per protocol, which is beyond the 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 relatively long but every sentence adds value. It starts with a clear metaphor, then details per-protocol behavior, and ends with use cases. No wasted words, though could be slightly 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 the complexity (multiple protocols, multiple conditions, no output schema), the description fully explains what the tool returns, including per-market structure, flagging logic, and top-level incident flag. It is complete for an AI agent to understand usage.

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 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds extra context like the flagging thresholds (utilization >= 95%) and wallet usage for solana-protocols and tron, which goes beyond the 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 returns an 'is anything on fire' snapshot across markets, using specific verbs like 'Return' and 'snapshot'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_compound_market_info' by noting it collapses multiple calls.

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 says when to use: suspect a governance pause, utilization cliff, or multi-market contagion. Mentions the alternative single-market tool, providing clear guidance on when not to use it.

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