yield_dashboard_rebalance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it states the tool is read-only, mainnet-only, and requires an unlocked wallet for address context. It also explains the core behavior of reading current positions and comparing to an optimal allocation, though it does not detail the format or scope of the returned suggestions.

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 purpose and behavior, then provides a structured risk-tolerance table that earns its place by clarifying the parameter. The trailing tip about earning_opportunities is slightly tangential but still useful for directing the agent.

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 one-parameter, read-only suggestion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, process, risk levels, safety constraints, and wallet requirement. It stops short of describing the response shape, but the phrase 'returns actionable suggestions' gives enough context for invocation.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by listing the exact target allocations for low, medium, and high risk tolerance and noting medium as default, which directly informs parameter selection.

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 a specific verb and resource: it produces rebalance suggestions based on risk-adjusted yield, reads positions across protocols, and compares them to an optimal allocation. It is distinguishable from siblings like yield_dashboard_overview and yield_dashboard_positions by emphasizing actionable suggestions rather than raw dashboard data, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied through the risk-tolerance levels and the statement that it returns actionable suggestions, with prerequisites such as mainnet-only and unlocked wallet noted. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over sibling tools like yield_dashboard_overview or yield_dashboard_positions, nor does it state exclusions.

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