DeFi Protocol Data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. It correctly indicates read-only behavior ('Get', 'Returns'), but does not mention data freshness, rate limits, or authentication needs. Adequate but not thorough.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy or wasted words.

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?

While the description covers the basic functionality, it lacks detail on the output format (e.g., fields for TVL, timestamps for history). No output schema exists, so the description should have hinted at the response structure for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dual-mode behavior: omitting chain returns all chains ranked, while providing a chain returns its history. This clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves blockchain ecosystem TVL data, with two distinct modes: all chains ranked or history for a specific chain. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on protocols or yield pools.

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 use for TVL data but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_defi_protocols or get_yield_pools. Usage context is only implied.

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?

The description states the tool returns protocols sorted by TVL, indicating a read-only operation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or failure modes.

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. The first sentence states the primary purpose and data source, the second lists filtering capabilities. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description gives a basic expectation ('returns top protocols sorted by TVL') and covers all parameters. It could be enhanced by mentioning that the result list is limited by the 'limit' parameter, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 adds value by grouping parameters (filter vs detail) and providing usage context (e.g., slug for single protocol detail, limit default) that the schema lacks.

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 'Get DeFi protocol TVL data from DefiLlama' with a specific resource (protocols) and action (get TVL). It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on protocols versus chains or yields.

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 explicitly mentions filtering options (chain, minimum TVL, single protocol by slug) which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives from the sibling list.

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 are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements. For a simple query tool, the description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence, 17 words, front-loaded with the core action. No extraneous information.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief. It mentions filters but doesn't specify default ordering, result shape, or that all parameters are optional. Some important details (e.g., min_tvl filter) are missing, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats some filter options (chain, project, symbol, min_apy) but omits min_tvl and limit. It does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool retrieves DeFi yield and APY pool data from DefiLlama. The verb 'Get' and resource 'yield and APY pool data' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings (get_chain_tvl, get_defi_protocols) which focus on chain TVL and protocol lists respectively.

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 provides clear context for usage: it filters from 19,000+ pools by chain, project, symbol, or minimum APY. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, though the purpose is distinct enough. No exclusion conditions are given.

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