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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains limitations (undecomposable protocols never assumed incentive-free, no ranking claim if leader is undecomposable), outputs (bestVerifiableFloor), and clarifies the temporal scope (not a forecast). This is exemplary transparency.

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 several sentences long but each sentence adds unique value: purpose, decomposition mechanism, limitations, output, and temporal scope. It is dense with information and not unnecessarily wordy, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining primary outputs and caveats. It lacks exact return formatting (e.g., units, data types), but the overall behavior is sufficiently clear for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 already provides a description for the only parameter (asset) with 100% coverage, including valid enums and default. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 what the tool does: it calculates how much current APY survives if incentives stop, splits yields into base vs reward, and reports a post-incentive floor. This specific verb+resource purpose distinguishes it from siblings like get_yield_decision or get_exit_capacity, which focus on other aspects of yield.

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 gives clear context that this is a stress test of current readings, not a forecast, which implies when to use it and what it is not for. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions beyond that, so it stops short of a 5.

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