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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does disclose a lot: batching limit of 25, annualized yield with caution flags, output fields, and the mints-vs-filters selection behavior. It stops short of stating what the caution flags mean, what happens when neither mints nor filters are supplied, or edge-case/error behavior, but the main behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the batch operation and output, the second explains the two parameter modes, and the third gives a concrete use case and routes away from stonk_yield. The key limitation and alternatives are front-loaded with no filler.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it names the output fields, states the 25-coin cap, and covers both invocation modes. The remaining gaps are minor — it doesn't specify behavior when neither mints nor filters are provided, and the 'volume' filter mentions a capability not directly represented in the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds the mints-versus-filters relationship and a usage example, but it doesn't add deeper per-parameter meaning; its mention of a 'volume' filter is slightly mismatched because volume appears only as a sort enum, not as a schema filter property.

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 opens with a specific operation — 'stonk_yield for up to 25 StonkFun reward coins in one call' — and enumerates the returned metrics (7d/30d/lifetime holder yield, reward asset, market cap, holders, last payout). It also explicitly contrasts itself with stonk_yield by saying it replaces one-call-per-coin usage, so an agent can distinguish the two tools.

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?

It names the alternative (stonk_yield) and gives concrete conditions for choosing this batch tool: 'what do the paying NVDAX coins yield?' or comparing yields across a shortlist. It also explains the two entry modes — pass mints or use screener filters — so the agent knows both how and when to invoke it.

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