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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the asset spans multiple reserves, supply/borrow include an APY spread, and a wide gap between highestApyPct and lowestApyPct is meaningful rather than noise. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 longer than average, but every sentence carries substantive information: scope, metric semantics, differentiation from get_apy_history, and token-address lookup guidance. It is front-loaded with 'v4 only' and the core definition, so an agent gets the essential meaning early.

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 5 parameters, a complete schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: cross-reserve behavior, metric meanings, the v4-only restriction, token address sourcing, and how it differs from the nearest sibling. No critical gap remains for correct invocation.

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 fully documents all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic depth to the 'metric' parameter by explaining exactly what each value means (oracle price per sample vs. amounts plus APY spread), which exceeds the schema's short enum labels.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving one asset's price, supply, or borrows over time on v4. It further clarifies that the asset is tracked across every v4 reserve that holds it, and explicitly distinguishes this from get_apy_history, making the purpose precise and non-confusable with siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it directly contrasts with get_apy_history and explains why the two questions differ. It also gives actionable routing advice for obtaining a token address, warning that get_markets does NOT return one and pointing to get_multichain_asset and get_hub_assets instead.

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