spectra_compare_yield

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the output surfaces competing interpretations when data is ambiguous (e.g., positive raw spread but negative effective spread), and explains protocol context for rates (implied APY, IBT APR, LP APY) and entry cost amortization. It does not explicitly state read-only but implies it.

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 well-structured in three paragraphs (purpose, protocol context, alternative tools). While it is slightly long, every sentence adds value and avoids redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, protocol-specific) the description covers key aspects: rates, entry costs, LP alternative, ambiguous outputs. It does not explain return format, which is acceptable without output schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool appropriately.

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%, but the description adds value beyond schema: it explains the formula for real boost using ve_spectra_balance (B = min(2.5, 1.5*(v/V)*(D/d)+1)), and the default for capital_usd and its interaction with ve_spectra_balance. This provides deeper context for the parameters.

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 fixed yield vs variable yield, helping users decide if locking in a fixed rate is worthwhile. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternative tools like spectra_get_looping_strategy, spectra_get_portfolio, and spectra_scan_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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool (deciding fixed vs variable) and when to use alternatives (e.g., spectra_get_looping_strategy for leveraging, spectra_get_portfolio for current positions, spectra_scan_opportunities for multi-chain comparison). It also notes that the output may be ambiguous in certain scenarios.

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