get_tvl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It adds 'historical' indicating time-series data (distinguishing from current-state queries), but omits critical behavioral details: data range limits, update frequency, whether this requires external API calls, rate limits, or return format structure.

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 compact at six words with no filler. Information is front-loaded immediately. However, the brevity borders on under-specification given the lack of supporting 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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description must compensate but fails to specify: which protocol's TVL is returned (Indigo), time granularity, data availability range, or response structure. For a zero-parameter tool, these scope definitions are essential but missing.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, establishing baseline 4. No parameter description is required, though the description could have clarified why no protocol selector is needed (i.e., it queries the current protocol context).

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 specific action (Get), resource (historical TVL data), and source (DefiLlama), distinguishing it from sibling price feeds like get_ada_price or get_dex_yields. However, it fails to specify this retrieves the Indigo Protocol's TVL specifically, which is implied by the zero-parameter schema and server context.

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 versus similar analytics tools like get_protocol_stats or get_dex_yields. Does not indicate whether this should be used for current snapshots versus time-series analysis, or data freshness considerations.

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