mantle_get_opportunity_chart

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It transparently discloses the critical backend_gap behavior (not implemented) and identifies the HTTP method (GET). It doesn't describe response format or auth, but the warning is a significant behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then API path and warning. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is adequately complete: it explains what data is returned (APY/TVL over time) and the main failure mode (backend_gap). No output schema exists, but the description covers the essentials.

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% (id is described as 'Opportunity ID (UUID)'). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb + resource: 'Get historical chart data (APY / TVL over time) for a yield opportunity.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., list_opportunities, get_opportunity) by focusing on chart data over time.

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?

Provides context for use (when needing APY/TVL trends over time) and includes an explicit warning that the endpoint is not yet implemented. It doesn't mention alternatives, but no sibling tool offers chart data, so it's clear.

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