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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It thoroughly discloses real-time and risk-weighted nature, specific sources (onchain vs DefiLlama), different chain/category distinction, signed result (EIP-712), public track record via EAS attestations, and offline verification capabilities. No contradictions or omissions.

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 appropriately sized, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides unique value. It avoids redundancy and wasted words. The structure flows logically: purpose, asset breakdown, source transparency, output format, and verification details.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, which assets and chains, how data is sourced (with source tagging), expected output format (signed data), and offline verification mechanism. It provides a complete picture for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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 has one optional parameter with enum and description (100% coverage). The description adds significant meaning by explaining what each enum value corresponds to (USDC/WETH lending on Base, ETH_STAKING liquid staking on Ethereum), which goes beyond the schema's brief description. It effectively enriches understanding of the parameter's role.

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 it provides a 'Real-time risk-weighted yield signal' for specific assets (USDC/WETH lending APY on Base, ETH_STAKING liquid staking APY on Ethereum mainnet). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_yield_decision' by focusing on fetching the raw signal. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_yield_decision'. It implicitly suggests it is for fetching raw yield data, but lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance. The agent can infer usage from context but no direct alternatives are stated.

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