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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the tool is paid ($0.002 USDC on Base or Solana), that no account or API key is required, that failed calls are not charged, and that the data source is DefiLlama. Cost, auth, and failure semantics are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking a paid endpoint.

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 'Paid.' followed by scope, returned fields, price, auth/no-key, refund policy, and endpoint. Every fragment is a distinct decision-relevant fact; there is no filler.

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 3-parameter paid data tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, payment, and the returned metrics (base/reward APY, TVL, 7d change), which is close to what an agent needs. It stops short of describing response shape or row ordering ties, and gives no guidance on when this is the wrong yield tool.

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 sort, limit, and min_tvl_usd are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the sort dimension ('by TVL or APY') and the returned metrics, but adds no syntax, units, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource precisely: live DeFi yields on Stellar, top pools ranked by TVL or APY, with base/reward APY, TVL and 7d APY change from DefiLlama. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling protocol/token yield tools and from buy_tvl_stellar, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the chain name in the title and the 'top pools' framing; there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over buy_tvl_stellar, buy_yields_protocol_*, or the other chain variants, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond payment.

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