read_pool_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description need not restate it. The description adds that the response includes APY history over time, hinting that the time window shapes the payload, but says nothing about rate limits, cost of wide `days` windows, or error behavior for unknown addresses/unsupported chain IDs.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the use case, then the prerequisite tool. Each sentence carries distinct information with no restated annotations or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the schema handles all parameter detail. What remains thin is behavioral edge cases (invalid pool address, unsupported chain) and the fact that pool_address is required, but for a read-only lookup tool the description is otherwise sufficient to call correctly.

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% – all three parameters, their defaults, and the valid chain IDs are documented in the schema. The description only loosely reinforces `days` via "APY history over time" and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Get detailed info for a single lending pool") with the scope narrowed to one pool and the payload characterized (APY history over time). It also names the sibling read_pool_list for discovery, so an agent can separate it from the list tool and from read_strategy_info 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?

"Use read_pool_list to discover pool addresses" gives an explicit prerequisite and routes the agent to the correct sibling, and "comparing pools" clarifies the analytical use case. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., whether it is worth calling for many pools at once), so it stops just short of full coverage.

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