get_chains_tvl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the sorting order ('ranked highest first') and scope ('across all blockchains'), which adds value beyond the name. However, it lacks details on return structure, pagination, or whether data is real-time, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core concept with the acronym expansion, and includes no wasted words. Every sentence contributes to clarity, making it highly concise 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (a ranked list of chains by TVL). It covers the essential context without requiring additional elaboration, though it could mention the output format (e.g., chain names with TVL amounts) for full completeness.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter 'limit' with a description of its default and maximum. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the schema already provides the necessary meaning. Baseline score of 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 a specific verb+resource: it returns Total Value Locked (TVL) across all blockchains, ranked by value. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on chains rather than protocols, prices, or yields, making the tool's 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 usage for retrieving a global ranking of chain TVL, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over siblings like get_protocol or get_yield_pools. There is no exclusionary guidance, so the context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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