chainpeek: current lending supply and borrow APY on Aave V3, Compound V3 and Morpho, with a best stablecoin rate view

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations by disclosing snapshot freshness ('refreshed about every 5 minutes' with as_of/stale fields), protocol/chain coverage, that APY excludes rewards, error semantics (422 on bad input, not charged), latency (<1s), price, and free-tier limits. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs for planning and budgeting.

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-loads usage, then return shape, then operational constraints in a logical order. It is dense but nearly every sentence is actionable; only the pricing/free-tier/docs boilerplate edges toward padding, and the title duplicated in the opening 'chainpeek:' prefix is slight 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, and annotations already cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps an agent needs: when to use it, coverage, data freshness, reward exclusion, error behavior, and cost, making it complete for a zero-required-param query tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters (view, limit, assets, chains, protocols, min_tvl_usd) including enums and defaults. The description echoes the best_stablecoin view and the stablecoin set but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what is already structured. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 (current lending supply and borrow APY) with named protocols (Aave V3, Compound V3, Morpho) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_protocol_tvl and get_funding_rates as the tools for adjacent data. An agent can separate this from every other yield/DeFi tool in the sibling list without opening a schema.

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?

Front-loads the trigger condition ('Use when an agent must choose where to lend or borrow') and then explicitly routes two adjacent needs elsewhere ('For protocol TVL use get_protocol_tvl; for perp funding use get_funding_rates'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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