blockrun_defi

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint) are already strong, but the description adds value by noting that paths are GET only, costs in USDC, and no API key needed. However, it omits details like response format or rate limits.

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?

Well-structured: first sentence summarizes purpose, then lists paths with costs, gives examples, and ends with sibling tool guidance. No redundant sentences; every part earns its place.

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?

Covers all critical aspects: data types, costs, examples, and sibling differentiation. However, missing explicit mention of return format (JSON) and error handling, which are minor gaps given the endpoint nature.

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%, and the description provides concrete examples ('protocol/aave-v3', 'prices/coingecko:ethereum') and clarifies path formatting, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic endpoint description.

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 it provides DeFi fundamentals via DefiLlama, listing protocol TVL, chain TVL, yield pools, and token prices. It distinguishes from siblings blockrun_price, blockrun_dex, and blockrun_surf by specifying that this tool is for protocol/TVL/yield fundamentals.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use alternatives: 'Use blockrun_price (free) for plain spot quotes, blockrun_dex (free) for DEX pairs, blockrun_surf for labeled on-chain data — this tool is for protocol/TVL/yield fundamentals.' Also mentions cost per call.

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