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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals one key behavioral rule (empty param returns top-20 list), but omits other important traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what happens when an invalid protocol is specified, or any rate limits. Given the absence of annotations, this is insufficient for full transparency.

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, two-clause sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and then gives a crucial usage hint. No redundant words, no restating of the tool name. It is optimally front-loaded and every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior: what it does and the empty-parameter special case. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the output format (e.g., a number, an array) or handling of unknown protocols, but these are minor for a tool this straightforward.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'protocol' parameter (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining that leaving it empty yields a top-20 list. This clarifies the parameter's optionality and default behavior, which is the critical semantic detail. However, it doesn't specify the expected format (e.g., name vs. slug), leaving some ambiguity.

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 indicates this tool provides TVL data for Base DeFi protocols, with 'Leave protocol empty for top-20 list' specifying special behavior. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling base_defi_yields beyond the name and TVL mention.

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 instruction 'Leave protocol empty for top-20 list' gives clear guidance for the optional parameter, but there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool over alternatives like base_defi_yields or base_overview. Usage context is implied through the tool name and TVL focus, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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