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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add some behavioral context: it labels the tool as an 'Anomaly feed' and discloses cost ('$0.002 per call'). It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or the exact criteria for what counts as an anomaly, but for a simple read-style movers endpoint this is a reasonable baseline.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The key behavior is front-loaded, the 'Anomaly feed' classification adds context, and the cost note is useful for an agent deciding whether to call the tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but mostly sufficient for selection. It conveys the intent, time windows, and cost, but it leaves chain values unspecified, does not clarify what a 'side' means relative to 'up and down', and provides no indication of the response shape.

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 coverage is 50%: chain and window are undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by mentioning the '1d or 7d' windows, which maps to the window parameter, but it provides no meaning for chain and no additional semantics for limit or minTvl beyond their schema descriptions. The 'up and down' phrase hints at output sides but not parameter behavior.

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 resource ('pools'), the metric (APY change over 1d or 7d), and the direction ('up and down'), so an agent can tell what the tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling defi_top_yields, but the 'APY change' framing strongly implies movers vs steady top yields.

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 phrase 'Anomaly feed' implies the tool is for detecting unusual APY movements, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as defi_top_yields, no exclusions, and no guidance on selecting between 1d and 7d windows.

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