DeFi Protocol Data

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. It correctly states it returns data (non-destructive) but lacks details on rate limits or other behavioral traits. Adequate for a simple read tool.

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 purpose, no redundant information. Highly concise and well-structured.

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, description sufficiently explains return behavior (all chains ranked or history). Could mention that data is live or source, but complete enough for a simple TVL tool.

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. Description adds context ('blockchain ecosystem TVL data') but does not provide additional parameter meaning beyond what's in the input schema 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?

Description clearly states the action (Get) and resource (blockchain ecosystem TVL data) and distinguishes two modes (all chains ranked, or history for specific chain). Siblings are about DeFi protocols and yield pools, so this is distinct.

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 TVL data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_defi_protocols or get_yield_pools. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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 carry the full burden. It states returns are 'top protocols sorted by TVL' but does not define 'top' (e.g., total number or ranking cutoff), mention limits (default 20, max 100 from schema), rate limits, or data freshness. The description gives a basic understanding but lacks important behavioral details.

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 consists of two sentences: the first defines the purpose, the second lists key filtering options. It is succinct, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's functionality.

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 could be more complete about the response format (e.g., fields like 'name', 'tvl', 'slug'). However, it adequately covers the main use cases and filtering. For a simple data retrieval tool with well-documented schema, the description is nearly complete, missing only a brief mention of return structure.

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?

All 4 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes filtering options but does not add new meaning beyond the schema descriptions (e.g., 'Filter by chain' vs schema's 'Filter by blockchain (ethereum, bsc, solana, arbitrum, etc.)'). No additional semantic value is provided.

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 DeFi protocol TVL data from DefiLlama, returning top protocols sorted by TVL. It differentiates from sibling tools (get_chain_tvl and get_yield_pools) by focusing on protocol-level TVL rather than chain-level TVL or yield data.

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 mentions filtering by chain, minimum TVL, or getting a single protocol by slug, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives (e.g., use get_chain_tvl for chain TVL), nor does it specify prerequisites or common patterns.

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 disclose behavioral traits. It only describes functionality without mentioning pagination, rate limits, data freshness, or that it is a read-only operation. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with key verb and resource, no 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?

The description covers the main purpose and filters, but given no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out behavioral details like result limits and sort order. It's minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description does not need to replicate parameter details. It adds context about the 19,000+ pools and lists some filter fields but omits 'min_tvl', providing marginal added value.

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 yield and APY pool data from DefiLlama' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('yield and APY pool data'). It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_chain_tvl, get_defi_protocols) by focusing on pool-level data with filtering capabilities.

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 for retrieving yield data with filters but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. However, the context from sibling names helps differentiate.

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