pendle_scan_opportunities

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it computes entry price impact using Pendle's logit AMM model, effective APY, pool capacity, Morpho looping availability, and Merkl incentives. It clearly states what the tool does and how it differs from a simple APY ranking.

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 very concise: a brief introductory sentence, a bullet list of computed metrics, and two sentences for alternative tools. No fluff, front-loaded, and well-structured.

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?

Although no output schema is provided, the description lists the key computed values (entry price impact, effective APY, pool capacity, etc.) giving a good sense of the output. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool returns, though not fully detailed. Slight deduction for missing explicit 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 coverage is 100% with individual parameter descriptions. The tool description only implicitly references capital_usd ('sized to your capital') and provides context for why parameters matter (e.g., price impact), but does not explain each parameter in detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 scans all Pendle chains for yield opportunities sized to capital, distinguishes it from raw APY ranking (pendle_get_best_fixed_yields) by listing specific computed metrics, and positions it as the Pendle equivalent of spectra_scan_opportunities. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: mentions spectra_scan_opportunities for Spectra-only, mv_scan_curator_opportunities for cross-protocol, and contrasts with pendle_get_best_fixed_yields. This makes selection straightforward.

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