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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: the target pool is fixed (current top-TVL), the call is free, and the payload is a packaged verdict plus risk score. It stops short of saying whether the data is live or illustrative, or noting rate limits/repeat-call behavior, which matters for an agent deciding how much to trust the sample.

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?

Front-loaded with 'FREE sample', then scope, then return shape — good ordering in three short sentences. Minor waste: 'FREE' and 'No payment required' say the same thing twice.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return value, and it does name the verdict enum (SUSTAINABLE/DECAYING/OUTLIER/AVOID) and the accompanying risk score. Combined with the zero-parameter schema, that is nearly everything needed to call it correctly; only the data's freshness/provenance is left ambiguous.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description earns it by explaining why the schema is empty — the pool is always the current top-TVL pool — which prevents an agent from hunting for a pool-address parameter that does not exist.

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+resource (sample yield-entry verdict) and narrows the scope to 'the current top-TVL pool', which is exactly the kind of detail an agent needs. The 'preview'/'before you pay' framing implicitly separates it from the sibling yield_entry_verdict, though it never names that sibling.

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 'before you pay' implies when to reach for it (inspecting output shape prior to a paid call), but there is no explicit 'use yield_entry_verdict when you need a real verdict for a specific pool' routing statement. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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