get_pool_apy

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says the tool gets APY, without explaining whether data is live/on-chain, calculation source, permission needs, or result format. The schema's period default adds a little, but the description itself is thin.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup and every word 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?

For a low-complexity read tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable but not complete: it doesn't answer what APY variant is returned, the data source, or how to interpret the result, and no output schema exists to cover return semantics.

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%; both parameters are documented in the schema, including the period's default and unit. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema's own poolAddress and period descriptions, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('APY for a KAYEN liquidity pool'). The pool type and protocol reference make it distinguishable from sibling price/balance/analytics tools, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer from the name that this is for APY queries only, with no indication of when another tool is preferable.

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