mv_compare_yield

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

No annotations provided, so description fully covers behavior. It details what comparisons are shown (implied APY, LP APY, liquidity, TVL, variable rate, winner analysis, maturity match quality) and explains maturity categories and Merkl campaign inclusion.

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 with bullet points and front-loaded main purpose. Some redundancy (chain list repeated in description and schema) but overall efficient. Could be slightly tighter but still good.

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, no annotations, and complexity as a comparison tool, description is thorough. Covers when to use, outputs, matching logic, chains, and alternative tools. Complete for agent decision-making.

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%, but description adds value by explaining maturity tolerance categories (exact ≤7d, close ≤30d, loose ≤90d) and providing examples for asset_filter. This goes beyond schema definitions.

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 compares Pendle and Spectra yield opportunities side-by-side. It uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('yield opportunities'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning alternative tools like pendle_list_markets and mv_scan_curator_opportunities.

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 says when to use ('Essential for MetaVault curators') and lists three alternative tools with specific use cases. Also specifies chain requirements clearly.

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