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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds a 0.25 USDC cost and a 'not financial advice' disclaimer, which are useful extra behavioral notes, but it does not disclose output format, data freshness, or what the digest actually contains.

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 compact, front-loads the core purpose, and adds the cost in a clear way. 'Not financial advice' is boilerplate but not harmful. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it omits what a 'digest' returns and how to interpret the output, which an agent would need to confidently use the results.

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 schema fully documents the single optional parameter with an example ('USDC'). The description only repeats that the asset is optional and adds cost context, which does not enhance the semantic understanding of the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies with 100% schema coverage.

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 (BSC DefiLlama yields) and deliverable (a digest), which conveys the tool's function without needing a verb. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling digest tools, but the resource name is specific enough to be 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of siblings like pair_digest or pm_digest. The only usage hint is that the asset is optional, but there is no context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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