get_tvl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a non-mutating 'Get' operation over historical data, but it does not disclose output format, time range, granularity, units, or whether the value is denominated in ADA, fiat, or another token.

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 a single, tightly-scoped sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, making it immediately parseable for an agent.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the response contains, but it does not. It also omits the time range, unit denomination, and how 'protocol TVL history' differs from get_protocol_stats or get_dex_yields, leaving the agent to infer key call semantics.

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, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('protocol TVL history'), making the primary purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_protocol_stats or get_dex_yields, but 'history' adds a meaningful temporal scope that the name alone does not convey.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_protocol_stats, get_dex_yields, or get_asset_price. There are no stated exclusions or conditions that would help an agent decide between these related read-only tools.

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