list_protocols

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains sorting behavior, filtering by chain, and specifies return fields. While it doesn't explicitly state side effects (e.g., mutability), the action is inherently read-only and the description is thorough.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections and is front-loaded. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeated field list) and could be slightly more concise while remaining clear.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is comprehensive. It covers full parameter behavior, return fields, and includes a validation note. The agent has all necessary information to invoke correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: limit range (1..500), sort_by options (tvl, change_1d, etc.), and chain filter with validation regex. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 'List DeFi protocols ranked by TVL (or 1d/7d change, or market cap).' It specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'DeFi protocols', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_global_defi and get_protocol_tvl, which is explicit differentiation.

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 provides explicit when-to-use examples: 'Use this for "what are the biggest DeFi protocols?"...' and contrasts with get_global_defi, stating 'Far more granular than CoinGecko's get_global_defi, which only returns aggregate DeFi market cap.' This gives clear guidance on alternatives.

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