read_strategy_recommendation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the APY basis (1d, unlike the list tool), the decimal-fraction convention for APY values, and the USD unit of weekly_earning_difference — real conventions an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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, purpose front-loaded, followed by the disambiguation rule and the unit conventions. Every sentence carries information the schema and annotations do not.

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 and the annotations are rich, so the description only needs to cover the non-obvious points — which it does (APY basis, decimal fraction, USD units). It could add a prerequisite note (e.g. the account must exist and be indexed) but is otherwise complete for a read-only, two-parameter 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%, with both account_address and chain_id documented plus default values, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves; all its extra value is about output-field interpretation rather than input semantics.

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 and resource ('Get a rebalancing recommendation for an Arcadia account') plus the outcome ('suggests asset changes to optimize yield'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling read_strategy_list by explaining the different APY basis.

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?

The 1d-vs-7d APY note implicitly tells the agent when this tool will disagree with read_strategy_list, which is useful routing context. However, there is no explicit 'use this when the user asks for rebalancing advice' statement or named alternative for strategy lookup, leaving the when-to-use decision partly inferred.

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