active_airdrop_farms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions detection from DefiLlama and included fields (APY, TVL, etc.), implying a read-only list operation. However, it does not specify update frequency, side effects, or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description is three sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: purpose, detection method, and data source. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given no output schema and 4 parameters, the description sufficiently explains the tool's output fields (APY, TVL, capital, confidence) and source. It lacks details on ordering, pagination, or error handling, but for a list tool this is acceptable. A more complete description would include output structure.

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 75% (3 of 4 params described). The description adds marginal value by mentioning derived fields like 'confidence score' but does not detail the 'limit' parameter or clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool provides 'Active airdrop / points-farming opportunities' and distinguishes from siblings like 'top_yield_farms' by focusing on airdrops. It specifies the detection method and data source, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies when to use (for airdrop/points opportunities) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use. It provides context for usage but lacks formal guidance compared to siblings.

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