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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the paid model ($0.002 USDC on Base or Solana), that no account or API key is needed, that failed calls are not charged, and that data comes from DefiLlama. It stops short of describing the response shape, row ordering, or what a paid call returns on empty results.

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 single dense sentence covering resource, data fields and source, followed by the payment terms and endpoint. The paid/cost fact is front-loaded so the agent sees the price before anything else; nothing is redundant.

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, filterable list endpoint with no output schema and fully documented params, the description covers cost, data source, and returned metrics. The only gap is that it never characterizes the response itself (field names, ordering, empty-result behavior), which matters slightly more because there is 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 coverage is 100%, so sort, limit and min_tvl_usd are already fully documented with defaults and ranges. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, but it does not explain how sort interacts with the default min_tvl_usd filter.

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 states a specific resource and scope: live yield pools holding DSOL across protocols and chains, returning APY and TVL. The token symbol in the name plus the explicit DSOL scoping makes it trivially distinguishable from the many sibling buy_yields_token_* 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for DSOL yield discovery rather than e.g. buy_yields_chain_solana or buy_yields_protocol_*. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over those siblings, nor any exclusion or prerequisite beyond the payment terms.

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