lulo_getBestRates

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation and aggregation across protocols, but omits details like whether rates are real-time, cached, or how 'best' is determined. With no output schema, the agent has minimal behavioral insight.

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, front-loaded sentence of 12 words with no redundant information. Every word contributes meaning, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 query tool with one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description provides sufficient context for basic invocation. However, it lacks details on return format or the meaning of 'best', which could be expanded for full clarity.

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 single parameter 'mint' is described in the schema ('Token mint address (base58)') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantics beyond stating 'across all protocols', which could confuse whether the parameter filters or is optional. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 action ('get'), the resource ('best lending/yield rates'), and the scope ('across all protocols'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lulo_deposit and lulo_withdraw which are actions, and lulo_getPositions which returns user-specific positions.

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 implies usage for checking rates, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., before depositing) or mention exclusions. It provides clear context for rate retrieval, but lacks explicit guidance.

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