Get HoodGrow token DeFi detail

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is already clear. The description adds that the tool reads on-chain state with 15-minute snapshots, which is helpful context for data freshness. It also notes failure on unknown symbols and cost/pricing, which is additional value beyond annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence explains the tool's scope intuitively, followed by pricing, failure conditions, and data freshness. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations. The description covers scope, examples of comparison, data sourcing, snapshot frequency, pricing, and error cases. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though return format is not described, but that is not required given no output schema.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a description of 'symbol' as a ticker symbol. The description does not add much beyond reiterating the symbol usage, but the schema is already clear. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 tool lists every Morpho lending market and Uniswap V3 pool involving a given token. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_token by providing the full picture rather than just the best-APY figure.

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?

It explains the tool is meant for comparing yield or borrow options, and contrasts it with get_token which provides a single best-APY figure. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives for other DeFi insights, but the contrast with get_token is useful.

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