get_protocol_risk_score

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds context beyond annotations by detailing what the score measures (contract safety, governance, audit posture) and what it does NOT measure (token upside, price direction). It also mentions issue numbers for context. 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 relatively long, but it is well-structured with front-loaded core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, scope clarifications, and explicit disclaimers. Every section adds value given the tool's risk profile and potential misuse, though it could be slightly more concise without losing important nuance.

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 description covers the tool's scope and usage limitations extensively, but lacks details on the output format (e.g., whether the score comes with sub-scores or raw data). Given the simple input and no output schema, a brief description of the return structure would improve completeness. Error cases or common pitfalls are also not addressed.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'protocol' with only a type constraint (string, minLength 1) and no description. The description compensates by explaining that the parameter is a DefiLlama slug and provides examples for multiple chains (Solana, Tron, EVM). Although the schema coverage is 0%, the description adds meaningful context, though it could include more details like slug formatting.

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, combining multiple factors. It specifies that higher scores indicate safer protocols, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on protocol-level due diligence rather than specific chain operations or speculative token picks.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool (for protocol due-diligence, e.g., comparing Aave V3 to Compound V3) and when not to use it (for speculative token picks, price direction, or investment recommendations). It provides clear exclusions and rationale, including explicit refusal of speculative prompts.

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