get_v4_reserves

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation by listing outputs like APYs and risk params. It states no API key is needed. However, it does not explicitly declare read-only status or discuss other behaviors like rate limits or data freshness. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and wastes no words. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool returns, the second provides sibling differentiation and access note.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key outputs (APYs, risk params, status) and the access requirement (no API key). It provides enough context for an agent to know what it will receive and that no authentication is needed.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter chainId, which already has a description. The tool description mentions 'No API key needed' but adds no additional meaning to the chainId parameter beyond what the schema provides. According to the baseline rule for high coverage (>,80%), a 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 what the tool does: 'Get Aave V4 reserves with supply/borrow APYs, risk params (collateral factor, caps), and status.' It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool get_aave_reserves by directing users to that for V2/V3, leaving no ambiguity about the scope.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance (for V4) and when-not-to (use get_aave_reserves for V2/V3). It also mentions 'No API key needed,' which is a useful prerequisite note. However, it does not address usage relative to other siblings like get_v4_asset or get_v4_user_summary, but given the large sibling list, focusing on the most similar is reasonable.

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