veroq_defi

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 discloses 'COST: 2 credits' which is a behavioral trait. It also clearly indicates read-only query behavior, but could mention data freshness or rate limits. No contradictions.

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 and well-structured with separate sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). Every sentence is informative and 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, return data, cost, and an example. It also references a sibling tool, making it fully self-contained.

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%, but the description adds significant context: explains that omitting the parameter gives an overview, includes an example ('aave'), and details return fields for protocol (TVL, 1d/7d/30d changes, category, chains) which are not in the schema. This greatly enhances parameter understanding.

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 'Get DeFi data' and explains two distinct behaviors: no argument returns overview, passing a slug returns protocol details. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'veroq_defi_protocol', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly states to use this for DeFi TVL data across protocols and chains, and recommends 'veroq_defi_protocol' for a single protocol deep dive, providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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