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 for behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format ('Returns TVL per market and aggregate totals'), but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, potential side effects, data freshness, or rate limits. The 'Get' verb implies a non-mutating operation, but the description does not make this explicit, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 that front-load the purpose and then specify the output. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or filler. It is concise and clearly structured.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, the scope (all DorkFi lending pools), and what it returns (per-market and aggregate TVL). This provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with a single optional 'chain' parameter that has an enum and a clear description ('Filter by chain, or omit for all chains'). The tool description does not add any additional context about this parameter, but the schema already fully documents it, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get total value locked (TVL) across DorkFi lending pools' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_markets and get_market by focusing on TVL specifically, and it notes the return types (per market and aggregate totals).

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need TVL metrics. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or related tool mentions. The description provides clear context but no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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