DAO treasury benchmarks — top DAOs by treasury size, stablecoin percentage, runway, and governance token concentration. Median benchmarks: $550M treasury, 61% stablecoin, 48-month runway. Source: DeepDAO public data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort_by | No | ||
| min_treasury_usd | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds context on the data source (DeepDAO public data) and the specific metrics included, which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 two concise sentences that get straight to the point. No filler or redundant information.
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?
The tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the output's content and source, but it fails to explain the parameters, leaving a gap for agent understanding.
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 no descriptions for either parameter (0% coverage). The description does not mention sort_by or min_treasury_usd, so an agent cannot infer their meaning or usage from the description.
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 identifies the tool as providing DAO treasury benchmarks with specific metrics (treasury size, stablecoin percentage, runway, and governance token concentration). It distinguishes from sibling benchmark tools by specifying the DAO treasury domain.
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 tool is for DAO treasury benchmarks, allowing an agent to select it when relevant. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling benchmarks or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct benchmark category (e.g., chain TVL, yield, options IV, RWA), with no overlapping purposes. The overview tool is clearly different. Agents can easily distinguish them.
Most tools follow 'get_<descriptor>_benchmark' pattern, but 'get_stratalize_overview' breaks the pattern. The naming is otherwise consistent and descriptive.
With 9 tools covering major DeFi and crypto benchmarks (TVL, yields, gas, options, RWA, etc.), the set is well-scoped and each tool serves a clear purpose.
The tool surface covers a broad range of crypto/DeFi benchmarks. Minor gaps exist (e.g., spot price feeds, exchange data), but the set is sufficient for benchmarking and agent discovery.