get_apr_rewards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It fails to explain what data the records contain, pagination behavior, freshness of APR data, or performance implications of retrieving 'all' records.

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?

Extremely brief at four words, and front-loaded with the action. While appropriately sized for a parameter-less tool, the brevity leaves behavioral questions unanswered given the lack of annotations or output schema.

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 this is a read operation in a complex DeFi protocol ecosystem (with CDPs, staking, and stability pools), the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of what constitutes an 'APR reward record' and omits return value details since no output schema exists.

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 has zero parameters, which per guidelines sets a baseline of 4. With no parameters to describe, the description meets the minimum requirement but cannot score higher without parameter context to enrich.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (APR reward records) with scope (all). However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'get_apr_by_key', which likely retrieves specific records rather than all records.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Should explicitly mention using 'get_apr_by_key' when looking up specific reward records, as opposed to fetching the complete list.

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