yield_dashboard_apy_breakdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states no wallet is required, data is mainnet-only, and where APY data comes from; but it contradicts itself by saying 'all supported' protocols are covered while immediately listing three as 'null' with no live source, making the actual output behavior unclear.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and constraints, and the per-protocol data-source list is relevant. It is slightly verbose and repeats 'null' explanations, but most sentences earn their place by disclosing coverage limitations.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the description gives enough context to understand the domain and main constraints. Still, it does not clarify the actual response shape for the one working source (Zest) or resolve whether the tool returns null entries for the other protocols.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and fully covered; a baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Current APY rates across all supported Stacks DeFi protocols') and names the covered protocols. It is clear enough for an agent to know this is a market-data APY breakdown, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like yield_dashboard_overview.

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?

It provides some useful context ('No wallet required — pure market data') and routes to `earning_opportunities` as a follow-up. However, it never states when to use this tool instead of `yield_dashboard_overview` or `yield_dashboard_positions`, leaving sibling selection mostly implied.

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