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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that each successful call costs $0.002 in USDC via x402 (Base, Solana, or Arc) and that failed calls are not charged. It also explains what is not reported (Gold/DApp points) and provides interpretation for the share price multiplier. These details give the agent a clear picture of cost, payment mechanics, and data boundaries.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then adds necessary context about data returned, exclusions, and pricing. It is dense but every sentence contributes useful information, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters, a rich output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, what is omitted, and the payment model. It leaves no significant gaps for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description focuses on output semantics rather than input parameters, which is appropriate given the empty 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 clearly states the tool returns Blast L2 native yield data for USDB and WETH predeploy contracts, including total supply and share price, plus block and gas metrics. It also explicitly clarifies that Gold/DApp points are not reported, which disambiguates the misleading name. However, it does not name any sibling tool or explicitly state how it differs from other yield or L2 tools, keeping it from a 5.

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 implies the tool is for querying Blast L2 native yield metrics, and it clearly notes that Gold points are not available, which serves as an exclusion. It does not, however, specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like crypto_defillama_yields or crypto_ethereum_staking_rewards, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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