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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers the important traits: it is a paid call at $0.01 USDC on Base or Solana, requires no account or API key, and failed calls are not charged. It does not describe the response shape or whether results are paginated.

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 paid flag and then the purpose in one tight sentence plus a short pricing/access note. The telegraphic style ('Paid.') is efficient, with only the endpoint URL being marginal extra.

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?

A zero-required-param read tool with no output schema, so the description only needs to convey what comes back and what it costs. It covers cost, access and the fields returned (APY, TVL) but leaves the exact row shape and row ordering unspecified.

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 the schema already documents sort (tvl default / apy), limit (1-100, default 20) and min_tvl_usd (default 100000). The description adds nothing about how to use these filters, 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 pools holding SKY across protocols/chains, with APY and TVL. That clearly separates it from buy_coin_SKY (price) and buy_yields_protocol_sky-lending (single protocol), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Implies the use case (finding where to earn yield on SKY) and names the data source, but gives no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or pointers to the chain- and protocol-scoped yield siblings for narrower queries.

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