stakechain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that junk-farm filters are built in, but it does not state data freshness, whether the operation is read-only, or what fields the returned pool includes.

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 a single well-formed sentence with the core action and scope front-loaded. The parenthetical adds useful filtering context without wasted language.

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 one-parameter read lookup, the description covers the selection logic, chain scope, asset scope, and junk-farm filtering. Because there is no output schema, the returned pool fields are not specified, but the core return concept is clear enough for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the single 'asset' parameter with examples. The description adds only 'given asset symbol' and does not provide additional syntax, constraints, or interpretation beyond the schema.

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: 'Get the single highest-APY pool on Base for a given asset symbol.' The word 'single' also implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list tools, which enumerate yields or vaults.

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 'single highest-APY pool' implies usage when an agent needs one best recommendation rather than a list. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_base_yields or explain when not to use this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it establishes this is a read-only listing on Base and names the fields returned, which is useful. It says nothing about data freshness, result-size limits/pagination, or whether the list is exhaustive across protocols, which matter for a discovery tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the resource and scope come first and the filter note trails it. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

For a read-only list tool with four optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers chain, domain, and returned fields adequately. Only ordering/limit behavior is left unstated, a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 all four filters (asset, minTvl, stable, sortByApy) are already documented one level down. The description adds only a generic 'Optional filters' and the returned-field list, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('staking/lending yield opportunities on Base'), and previews the returned fields (APY, TVL, project). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings best_yield or list_lending_vaults, so differentiation is only implied by 'List' vs 'best'.

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?

'Optional filters' hints that the tool accepts narrowing criteria and works fine with no arguments, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer best_yield or list_lending_vaults, and no exclusions.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' plus the enumerated output fields does imply a non-destructive read, and 'curated' hints at a maintained subset, but there is nothing about data freshness for APY/TVL, result size, or pagination for what could be a large vault list.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the chain, the protocol, and the return fields with zero filler. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the return fields, and with zero params there is nothing else an agent needs in order to invoke it. The remaining gap is operational detail (freshness, result limits) rather than anything that blocks a correct call.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus a precisely scoped resource: curated ERC-4626 lending vaults on Base, Morpho, with the returned fields enumerated (address, asset, APY, TVL). It stops short of distinguishing itself from the near-identical sibling list_base_yields, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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 statement of when to use this versus best_yield or list_base_yields, and no preconditions or exclusions. The only signal is the word 'curated', which hints at a filtered subset but never explains the filter or the routing rule.

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