find_best_rates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that queries are in parallel, excludes certain chains/pools, and returns a ranked table with recommendation. It does not cover rate limits, data freshness, or error handling, but the core behavior is well described for a read-only tool.

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 (approximately 100 words) and front-loaded with usage examples. Each sentence adds unique information: examples, behavior, exclusions, output details, and recommendation. No redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Given the three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output fields (chain, APYs, utilization, liquidity) and includes a recommendation field. It could mention handling of no results or multiple tokens, but it is sufficient for the tool's scope among many siblings.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying case-insensitive partial match for asset, elaborating on the side parameter's meaning (rank by highest vs lowest), and reinforcing defaults. This provides helpful context for correct parameter selection.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: querying AAVE lending deployments for a given asset and ranking by APY. It provides clear usage examples ('Where should I supply USDC for the best yield?') and differentiates from sibling tools that focus on individual reserves or user 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 gives specific user queries that trigger this tool, indicating when to use it. It also notes exclusions (Fantom, anomalous pools) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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