yield_dashboard_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the safety profile (read-only), the network constraint (mainnet-only), the precondition of an unlocked wallet, and — most valuably — known data quirks where ALEX/Bitflow LP values are 0 and only Zest reports a live APY. It stops short of explaining valuation method or how a locked wallet manifests as an error.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then coverage and return shape, then constraints, then caveats, then a single actionable tip. Every line carries information; nothing is filler despite the multi-paragraph layout.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return fields (total value, weighted APY, per-protocol breakdown) and flagging null APYs and zeroed LP values. It could go one step further and describe the structure of the per-protocol breakdown entries, but an agent has enough to call and interpret it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or muddies the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (portfolio overview of Stacks DeFi positions), enumerates the four protocols covered, and names the return payload (total value, weighted APY, per-protocol breakdown). It does not, however, distinguish itself from its close siblings yield_dashboard_positions and yield_dashboard_apy_breakdown, which an agent would need to disambiguate.

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 prerequisites (read-only, mainnet-only, requires an unlocked wallet) and a next-step tip pointing to earning_opportunities, but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to the other yield_dashboard_* tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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