query_yield_arbitrage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the comparison scope but does not mention what the output looks like, whether the data is live or delayed, any rate limits, or that this is a read-only operation beyond the verb 'compares'.

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?

A single, substantive sentence that front-loads the main action and includes valuable specifics about the compared sources. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The two fully documented parameters make invocation straightforward, and the description conveys the core purpose. However, there is no output schema and no description of the return format or comparison results, leaving some ambiguity about what the agent will actually receive after calling the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already described with defaults and examples. The description adds no additional meaning about how 'symbol' or 'capitalUsd' affect the comparison, so the baseline score of 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 ('Compares') and the exact resources being compared: Binance Earn/funding rates versus CHAINZ on-chain yield vaults. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like evaluate_trade_risk, parse_trade_intent, and execute_hedged_trade.

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 comparison wording implies it should be used for yield-arbitrage assessment, but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus the siblings or any exclusions. There is no 'use when' language or mention of alternatives.

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