DeFi TVL by chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'DefiLlama nightly snapshot' freshness caveat, but says nothing about return shape, sort order, or how the limit behaves.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness is partly what leaves gaps elsewhere.

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 no output schema, the description should at least hint at the ranking contents and how 'limit' shapes the result. It gives the data source and freshness but leaves return format and pagination behavior unspecified.

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?

The single parameter 'limit' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so its meaning (number of chains returned?) is left to guesswork. The schema's min/max bounds constrain it, but the description does not compensate for the missing semantics.

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 names a specific resource and scope: a DeFi TVL ranking broken down by chain, sourced from DefiLlama. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling top_defi_protocols (protocols vs. chains) and get_chain (single-chain metadata), though it never states that distinction explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as top_defi_protocols or get_chain, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the phrase 'by chain'.

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