get_dex_yields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only implies read-only safety through the word 'Get'. It fails to specify which DEX(s) are queried (IRIS, SteelSwap, or both), whether data is real-time or cached, what 'yields' specifically represents (APR, APY, claimable tokens), or any rate limiting concerns.

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, efficient sentence of seven words with no redundancy or filler. It leads with the action verb and maintains tight focus, though the extreme brevity comes at the cost of necessary context given the complex DeFi domain.

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 complex DeFi domain (farming yields, iAssets) and the absence of both an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It should specify the return structure, which DEX platforms are covered, and what yield metrics (annualized rates, reward tokens) are returned.

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 contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4 according to the evaluation rubric. With no arguments to document, there are no semantic gaps to fill between the description and schema.

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 provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('DEX farm yields'), and narrows scope with 'for iAsset pairs' indicating specific yield data for Indigo synthetic asset liquidity pools. It distinguishes from sibling CDP, staking, and basic price tools, though it could better differentiate from related yield tools like 'get_apr_by_key' or 'get_iris_liquidity_pools'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_apr_rewards' or 'get_iris_liquidity_pools'. It lacks prerequisites, filtering guidance (it returns all iAsset pairs), or conditions when this data source is preferred.

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