Open ProofYield

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the architecture: the LLM is the reasoning brain and deterministic code authorizes every financial action. This clarifies the tool's non-destructive, informational nature.

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-loading the primary function and adding an architectural note in the second sentence. Every sentence contributes value with 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?

Given no parameters, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose. The architectural context adds completeness. However, what 'public configuration' includes could be slightly more explicit.

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?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter information.

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 opens the ProofYield treasury dashboard and reports public configuration. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on strategy creation, receipts, snapshots, scanning, simulation, and 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, context for invocation, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others like monitor_check or receipt_get.

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