ERC-4626 share vs redemption value

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it names the on-chain methods involved (previewRedeem / convertToAssets), the comparison with a live quote, and the redeemability checks (paused/cooldown/cap). It does not discuss failure modes for non-vault inputs, but the scope warning mitigates that. 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?

Three sentences with no filler: scope, mechanism, use cases, and the alternative are each covered in compact form. The most important constraint ('For ERC-4626 VAULT SHARE tokens only') is placed first, so an agent sees it immediately.

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 safety annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly: eligible token types, chain support via schema, core comparison logic, redeemability checks, and when to route to token_report instead. No essential context is missing.

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 schema documents the address parameter and gives chain an enum plus default but no description, so overall coverage is about 50%. The description compensates by clarifying what the address must represent: ERC-4626 vault share tokens, with concrete examples (sDAI, yield-vault shares, wrapped-staking tokens). It doesn't restate the chain enum, but the enum and default already carry that information, so the risk is low.

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?

States a precise action with a specific resource: compares an ERC-4626 vault share's on-chain redemption value against its secondary-market quote and checks redeemability. The scope is front-loaded ('For ERC-4626 VAULT SHARE tokens only') and the tool is clearly differentiated from token_report. Concrete examples (sDAI, yield-vault shares) make the purpose unmistakable.

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 this tool: for ERC-4626 vault share tokens, including wrapped-staking tokens. It names the key alternative for the general case: 'For a plain ERC-20 use token_report instead.' It also gives concrete scenarios where this tool is useful, such as spotting an overpaying share or a stale/depegged vault.

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