get_manifest

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full transparency burden. Describes it as a read operation returning structured data with no side effects. Listing return fields adds transparency beyond a mere 'get manifest'.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and resource 'DPX protocol manifest', then lists return fields and usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero parameters and an output schema (implied by context), the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. Lists key output categories (capabilities, assets, addresses, URLs, endpoints) sufficient for agent understanding.

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 exist (schema has zero properties with 100% coverage), so baseline is 4. Description adds value by detailing what the output contains, compensating for any potential ambiguity about the manifest's content.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves the DPX protocol manifest and lists specific return contents (capabilities, supported assets, contract addresses, URLs, endpoints). The directive 'Call this first' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote or get_settlement_status as an initialization/discovery tool.

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 'Call this first', providing clear when-to-use guidance. While no when-not or alternatives are mentioned, the context of sibling tools and the nature of a manifest imply it is a prerequisite for other operations.

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