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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful context such as data source, normalization, 5-minute refresh, and per-call cost, but it does not disclose output ordering, default limits, pagination, or rate limits. It is helpful but not complete.

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?

The description is compact and information-dense, with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and filters, while the second adds important operational details about freshness and cost. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the agent gets back and how calling behavior works. It does not mention result fields, ordering, default limits, pagination, or what a zero-filter call returns. For a six-parameter data tool, this is a notable gap.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does explain five of the six filters conceptually (chain, project, symbol, stablecoin, min TVL) but omits 'limit' and leaves the stablecoin boolean semantics ambiguous. It adds meaning beyond the schema for some params but not all.

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 clearly identifies the resource (DeFi yield pools from DefiLlama) and the key capabilities: normalization and filtering by chain, project, symbol, stablecoin, and min TVL. However, there is no explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool defi_protocol.

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 description implies usage through filterable fields but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus defi_protocol or the scrape tools. There are no stated alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent route between siblings.

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