get_yield_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It lists the returned data but does not mention whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or what happens if data is unavailable. For a tool with zero parameters, more context on its safety and behavior would be beneficial.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key data points. It is concise with no wasted words, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is relatively complete for a simple fetch with no parameters. It lists the main data fields. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., global vs personal data) and temporal aspects. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the description need not add parameter info; the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate as the description focuses on the returned data.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Venus Protocol yield stats', listing specific data points like deposits, redemptions, net balance, yield claims, and token mappings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_leaderboard or get_market_details, which cover different aspects.

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 retrieving Venus Protocol yield statistics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives nor provide exclusions. While the context of sibling tools suggests differentiation, the description lacks direct guidance.

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