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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions scope ('200+ chains') but omits critical details: whether it is read-only, authentication needs beyond api_key, rate limits, pagination, or data recency. The '$0.02' hint is ambiguous and not explained.

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 extremely short (one sentence plus a number), which is efficient. The core information 'APY, TVL, protocols across 200+ chains' is front-loaded. However, the '$0.02' seems extraneous and could be distracting.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and siblings, the description is insufficient. It leaves out parameter details, return format, pagination, and behavioral context. A user would have to guess or experiment to use the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (chain, limit, minApy, api_key). It mentions APY and TVL but does not link them to parameters. No parameter meanings or usage hints are 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?

Description identifies the tool as returning DeFi yield farming data including APY, TVL, and protocols across many chains. The name 'get_defi_yields' and context from sibling tools (get_defi_pools, get_defi_tvl) help distinguish it, but no explicit verb is stated in the description, and the '$0.02' reference is unclear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative DeFi siblings (e.g., get_defi_pools for pools, get_defi_tvl for TVL). The description implies it covers yields, but lacks explicit context on selection, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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