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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (APY, TVL, best yields by TVL tier, ecosystem average), the data source (DeFi Llama), and an explicit price of $0.005 USDC per call. It stops short of stating data freshness/caching or whether APY is spot vs. trailing.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work — scope, coverage, return values, source, and cost — with the core purpose front-loaded. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies what matters: what is compared, what comes back, and the data provenance. The only real gap is the absence of freshness/cadence information, which slightly limits an agent deciding whether results are timely.

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 limit, minTvl, and sortBy are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the indirect hint of 'best yields by TVL tier' relating to minTvl, with no extra syntax, valid ranges, or guidance on choosing between 'apy' and 'tvl' sorting.

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 and resource — 'Compare Solana Liquid Staking Token (LST) yields' — and enumerates the covered tokens (mSOL, jitoSOL, bSOL, INF, jupSOL) and protocols (Marinade, Jito, Sanctum, BlazeStake). This clearly separates it from generic siblings like yield_rates and from l2_yield_scanner.

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 Solana-LST framing gives clear context for when to reach for this tool, and mentioning DeFi Llama as the source sets expectations. It does not, however, explicitly exclude or name alternatives such as yield_rates or l2_yield_scanner, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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