Research approved yield opportunities

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains that live Aave rates are read on-chain, controlled vault rates are explicitly labeled simulated, and DO_NOTHING is always included. This complements the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradiction.

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 relatively concise with two sentences, but the second sentence is dense and could be better structured for readability. It front-loads the core purpose effectively.

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 has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema, the description fails to explain the role of inputs like walletAddress and amount. Without parameter guidance, agents cannot use the tool correctly, making it incomplete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters (amount, assetId, walletAddress, allowedChainIds). Agents cannot infer what these inputs represent or how they affect the scan, leaving a critical gap.

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 queries allowlisted adapters for test-USDC opportunities, and the title 'Research approved yield opportunities' accurately reflects the purpose. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like strategy_createPlan or plan_simulate by focusing on research rather than planning or execution.

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 context on scope (test-USDC, adapters) and mentions DO_NOTHING inclusion, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites or when not to use, leaving agents to infer from context.

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