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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: figures are derived from on-chain swaps, include staking rewards and rebalancing costs, and the call is not billed when there are no matches. It does not explain ordering defaults, confidence filtering, or what an empty result looks like concretely.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the resource and metric, then the value proposition, then the billing caveat. No filler, though the final billing sentence is slightly orphaned without context on the x402 payment model.

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?

For an 8-parameter, no-output-schema tool with zero annotations, the description covers the analytical model well but leaves filter semantics, sort behavior, and low-confidence handling unexplained. An agent can form a query but must guess at the meaning of several optional filters.

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 38% across 8 parameters, so the description needs to compensate but largely does not. The venue names in the prose map loosely onto the venue enum, yet pair, token, sort, limit, window, min_tvl, and include_low_confidence get no added meaning or units 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?

Names the specific resource (real yield of Base Uniswap v3, Aerodrome and Aero concentrated-liquidity pools) and the metric computed (fee APR against LVR, plus staking rewards and rebalancing costs from on-chain swaps). It is clear this is a listing/ranking of pools, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling lp_real_yield_pool.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Shows where a headline APR is lost to arbitrage' and 'Not charged when nothing matches', which cues the agent that this is a discovery call that may return empty. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over lp_real_yield_pool or how to follow up with the singular tool.

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