AgentDefi — DeFi Protocol & Yield Intelligence

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and describes output, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or disclose behaviors like data freshness or rate limits. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns and the two modes. It does not detail ranking order or data format, but is sufficient for basic use.

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 the schema already describes parameters well. The description adds context about the dual mode (all chains vs. history) but does not significantly augment parameter semantics beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 states it retrieves blockchain ecosystem TVL data, with two modes: all chains ranked or history for a specific chain. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_defi_protocols, get_yield_pools) by focusing on TVL, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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 when to use (need TVL data) and the two modes, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like sibling tools. Usage is implied, not fully stated.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that data is sorted by TVL and filterable, but does not mention read-only nature (though implied), data freshness, error behavior, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and source, followed by key features. 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?

Given no output schema, the description should mention return format (e.g., fields per protocol). It covers core functionality but omits error handling and result structure. Could be more complete for an agent to confidently use the response.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates filtering capabilities (chain, min_tvl, slug) but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. No extra contextual or behavioral hints for parameters.

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 states it gets DeFi protocol TVL data from DefiLlama, sorted by TVL. It distinguishes from siblings like get_chain_tvl (chain-level TVL) and get_yield_pools (yield data) by specifying the resource (protocols) and verb (get).

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 when to use (for protocol TVL data) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention siblings. It lacks guidance on when not to use or how it differs from get_chain_tvl or get_yield_pools.

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

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It does not disclose data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. It adds no behavioral context beyond the basic function, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Single sentence is extremely concise, front-loaded with the action 'Get DeFi yield and APY pool data', and includes key filtering options without extraneous words. Every part is essential.

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?

Despite 6 parameters and no output schema, description is minimal. It does not explain return format, pagination (limit is mentioned in schema), or how APY data is structured. Incomplete for a data retrieval tool of this complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description mentions 4 of 6 filters (chain, project, symbol, min_apy) but adds no additional meaning beyond what schema provides. Baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves DeFi yield and APY pool data from DefiLlama with filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like get_chain_tvl (TVL) and get_defi_protocols (protocol list) by focusing on yield pools, though no explicit differentiation is made.

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?

Description implies usage for filtering pools by chain, project, token symbol, or minimum APY, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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