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 that the call is paid, the exact price and payment chains, that no account or API key is needed, and that failed calls are not charged. Gaps remain on freshness/latency of the yield data, rate limits, and response shape, but the core commercial and auth behavior is unusually well covered.

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.' and then the data payload, followed by price, auth, failure policy, and endpoint URL — every sentence carries information. The telegraphic style is efficient, though the pricing/auth block reads as a run of fragments rather than structured prose.

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, all-optional read tool with no output schema, the description supplies what's missing: the returned fields, data source, and cost model. An agent has enough to decide and invoke correctly; only rate limits and response envelope details are absent.

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 mentions returned fields but adds no meaning about the parameters themselves (e.g. no guidance on when to sort by apy vs tvl). Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: live DeFi yields for the Dolomite protocol, its pools across chains, with named data fields (APY, TVL, 7d APY change) and source (DefiLlama). Saying 'its pools across chains' distinguishes it from the chain-scoped buy_yields_chain_* siblings and from other buy_yields_protocol_* entries.

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 context is implied by the pricing/auth notes ('$0.002 USDC on Base or Solana. No account, no API key'), which tells the agent it can call this directly without setup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, e.g. no routing statement pointing to buy_yields_chain_dolomite-style alternatives or to buy_yields_top for broader discovery.

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