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

With no annotations, the description supplies substantial operational context: a $0.005 USDC charge on Base or Solana, no account or API key, no charge for failed calls, and live DefiLlama sourcing. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or disclose rate limits and response mechanics, but its data-retrieval nature is clear despite the buy_ prefix.

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?

A few short statements convey purpose, scope, metrics, source, price, payment networks, authentication requirements, and failure billing without repetition. The endpoint URL is marginally extra for tool selection, but the description remains compact, front-loaded, and easy to scan.

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 simple paid lookup with three optional, fully documented parameters, this provides nearly everything needed to select and invoke it: scope, returned metrics, provenance, cost, and access requirements. Because there is no output schema, additional detail about response shape, units, or pool and chain identifiers would improve completeness, and explicit sibling routing is 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 coverage is 100% and already documents the sort choices, row limits, TVL filter, and defaults, so the baseline score applies. The description adds no parameter semantics such as sort direction or whether TVL filtering occurs before the row limit is applied.

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 identifies a specific resource and scope: live InfiniFi pool yields across chains, including APY, TVL, and 7-day APY change from DefiLlama. This distinguishes it from chain-, token-, stablecoin-, and top-yield siblings even though those tools are not named.

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 wording establishes a clear use case: retrieve InfiniFi's pools across chains rather than yields filtered by a particular chain or token. It does not explicitly direct broader requests to buy_yields_chain_*, buy_yields_token_*, or buy_yields_top, so there are no stated exclusions or alternatives.

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