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 on the high-stakes facts: it is paid ($0.01 USDC on Base or Solana), requires no account or API key, and failed calls are not charged. It omits rate limits, whether payment is per successful call or per request, and the response shape, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Terse, front-loaded, and free of filler: payload, source, price, auth, failure policy, endpoint, in roughly that priority. The phrase 'Live DeFi yields for current: its pools' is grammatically awkward and slightly obscures the subject, which is the only real waste.

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 paid, output-schema-less fetch tool it covers return fields, cost, auth, and failure charging, which is most of what an agent needs. It is still missing the meaning of 'current' and any indication of response structure or result size, both material for a tool with no output schema.

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% and each parameter already documents its allowed values and defaults (sort tvl/apy, limit 1-100 default 20, min_tvl_usd default 100000). The description adds no extra meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies; it also does not flag that all three parameters are typed as strings rather than numbers.

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?

It states the payload clearly (pools across chains with APY, TVL, 7d APY change) and the data source (DefiLlama). But the resource name 'current' is never explained, so an agent cannot tell whether this is a protocol slug named 'current' or a 'current snapshot' mode, nor how it differs from the hundreds of sibling buy_yields_protocol_<slug> tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to pick this over buy_yields_protocol_aave-v3, buy_yields_chain_base, or buy_yields_token_* for a given query. The only selection-adjacent information is price and payment rails, which does not help an agent choose the right yields endpoint.

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