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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only view ('see') but does not describe the output format (e.g., list of chains with TVL amounts, ordering, currency units) or any caveats about data freshness or chain coverage. This is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 two concise sentences. The core subject ('Cross-chain capital allocation') is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a plain-language explanation. 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?

For a zero-parameter tool, the core function is stated. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the returned data will look like (e.g., a chart, a table, specific metrics beyond TVL). It is minimally sufficient but leaves room for ambiguity about the output structure.

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 has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing that needs clarification.

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's function: showing cross-chain capital allocation in terms of TVL per chain. It uses a specific verb ('see') and resource ('which chains hold how much TVL'), which is distinguishable from sibling tools like flow_scan or protocol_flows (which likely focus on flows rather than static allocation). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description says 'See where the ecosystem money sits' but does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools exist, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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