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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the call is paid, the exact price ($0.002 USDC), accepted payment chains (Base or Solana), that no account or API key is needed, and that failed calls are not charged. It stops short of describing rate limits, caching/freshness, or the response shape beyond the listed fields.

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-loads the most decision-relevant fact ('Paid'), then scope, then pricing and access terms in compact clauses with zero filler. Every sentence 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 three-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what data comes back, the cost model, and the access requirements. Minor gaps are freshness/caching and pagination semantics, which are not blocking for correct invocation.

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 documented with defaults. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior (e.g. whether min_tvl_usd filters out pools entirely or pagination interacts with limit), so 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 resource and scope: live DeFi yield pools for the single protocol sentora-curator, across chains, with named fields (APY, TVL, 7d APY change) and the data source. The resource is unambiguous from the name and first sentence, though it never contrasts itself with the chain-level or token-level yield 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?

Implied usage is clear (fetch per-protocol yield pools), and the paid framing plus 'failed calls not charged' helps an agent decide whether to call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer buy_yields_chain_* or buy_yields_token_* instead, and no note on what happens when the protocol has no pools.

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