market_get_chain_tvl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about the data source (DefiLlama) and return format (list of date/TVL pairs), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant or filler words. Every word contributes 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 and strong annotations, the description adequately covers the return format and purpose. It does not mention units (e.g., USD), but this is a minor omission for a straightforward read-only TVL endpoint.

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% for the single 'chain' parameter, with an example provided in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, but it also does not need to.

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 verb 'retrieve', the resource 'historical TVL time series for a specific blockchain network', and the source 'DefiLlama'. It specifies the output as date/TVL pairs, which distinguishes it from related tools like market_get_protocol_tvl and market_get_token_history.

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 chain-level historical TVL data, which is clear from the wording. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool for chain TVL history.

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