get_tvl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly through 'Get' and states the return contents, but it does not address permissions, rate limits, or side effects. This is partially transparent but has gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loads the action and resource, and contains no filler. Every phrase adds information about scope or return contents.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional enum parameter, the description's combination of scope ('across DorkFi lending pools') and return details ('per market and aggregate totals') is nearly sufficient. It lacks explicit mention of response field names or currency units, but given the low complexity and rich schema, it is mostly complete.

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 only parameter, 'chain', is fully described in the input schema with an enum and filtering semantics, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter details, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('total value locked across DorkFi lending pools'), and states the return shape ('per market and aggregate totals'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_markets, which could also involve market-level metrics, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives. The description implies usage via the verb 'Get' and the TVL focus, but it gives no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools such as get_markets, leaving the agent to infer.

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