analytics / tvl

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that TVL is derived from verified price/reserve inputs and that USD estimates will be withheld rather than guessed, which tells the agent to expect partial or absent values; however it never says what the response actually looks like when data is missing.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the integrity constraint is placed prominently. It is efficient, though efficiency comes at the cost of saying almost nothing operational.

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?

With two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and an ambiguous return type, the description should explain what is returned (a value, a status, or an explanation) and what pool omission means. None of that is present, so an agent cannot reliably predict the result of a call.

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?

Neither parameter is mentioned in the description while schema description coverage is 0%, so nothing explains what chain_id denotes (numeric chain identifier) or how the optional pool narrows the scope from chain-level TVL to a single pool. The description leaves the entire parameter burden to an undocumented 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?

The verb 'Explain' plus 'TVL availability' signals something, but it is ambiguous whether the tool returns a TVL number, a boolean availability flag, or a narrative explanation. It never names the sibling analytics tools (rankings, volume_fees, turnover) it should be contrasted with, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus analytics.rankings, analytics.volume_fees, or other analytics siblings, and no prerequisites are given. The only guidance is a negative constraint about not fabricating, which is about output conduct rather than tool selection.

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