get_yield_pools

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, and it does state the tool sorts by APY and offers filters. However, it does not mention return fields, pagination, default limit, or data availability, leaving the response format ambiguous. The added context about avoiding risky pools is useful but not sufficient to fully cover the behavior.

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-loaded with the core purpose, and provides filtering options in a compact, readable format. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with all parameters optional and fully described in the schema, but there is no output schema. The description does not explain the return value structure beyond 'pools by APY,' and does not mention the limit parameter or default behavior. This leaves some gaps for an agent trying to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances meaning by providing explicit examples for chain and project (e.g., 'Ethereum', 'aave') and explaining the purpose of minTvlUsd ('to avoid tiny risky pools'), which adds value beyond the schema. The limit parameter is not discussed, but the schema already covers its default and constraints.

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 returns 'Top DeFi yield / farming pools by APY,' specifying the resource (yield/farming pools) and the sorting criterion (APY). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_token_prices, get_stablecoins, and get_protocol, which address different data types.

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 it (for yield/farming opportunities) and provides concrete filtering guidance with examples ('Ethereum', 'aave') and the rationale for the minimum TVL filter ('to avoid tiny risky pools'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly distinct, and the context is clear.

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