get_stability_pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' plus 'latest state' implies a read-only operation and names the returned data, but it does not mention response structure, potential staleness, or any operational caveats. This is adequate but minimal.

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 one concise sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. The parenthetical adds useful specificity without wasting words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the returned data; the parenthetical does so by naming snapshots, epoch-to-scale-to-sum, and asset states. It is largely complete for a zero-parameter getter, though it omits any caveats about data freshness or response formatting.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is handled well.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('latest stability pool state for each iAsset'), then names the returned components. This distinguishes it effectively from siblings like get_stability_pool_accounts and other getters.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_stability_pool_accounts or other state getters. The intended use is inferable but not explicitly stated, and no exclusions or sibling comparisons are given.

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