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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does signal a passive read ('Read verified on-chain...') and characterizes the data as verified and the risk scores as explainable, which builds trust in the payload. It stops short of disclosing data freshness/caching, rate limits, cost, or whether the full 30-pool set is returned by default.

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 with no filler, and the scope-defining numbers (30 pools, 7 chains) arrive early. It is dense but readable; the only cost is that everything, including return-value hints, is packed into one clause chain.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the returned metrics (APY, TVL, idle liquidity, 0-100 risk score). It omits default filter behavior and result-set shape, which leaves real gaps for a data-query tool with three optional filters.

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 100% with per-field descriptions for kind, chain and stableOnly, so the schema does the documentation work. The description never references any of the three filters or their combinability, adding no meaning beyond the structured fields — the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Read) and a precisely enumerated resource: APY, TVL, withdrawable idle liquidity and risk scores for 30 pools across seven named chains. The scope is quantified and nothing overlaps with the sibling tools (wallet, token scan, deployer reputation), so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 says what data exists but never says when to call it versus not, nor how the optional filters should be applied. There is no mention of the default behavior when no filter is supplied, so an agent must infer the calling context entirely.

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