chain_tvl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context (data source DefiLlama, categories like DEX venues and RWA subset), but it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention return format, latency, or other behavioral traits. This is adequate for a simple data-retrieval tool but not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences that pack in the data source, the specific output components, and the intended use cases. Every clause adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does list the output components (TVL, protocols, DEX venues, RWA subset) and provides use-case guidance. It could be more explicit about whether the data is a snapshot or includes historical trends, but the 1d/7d change hints at time-lapse. Overall, it is complete enough for a zero-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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details. Per calibration, a baseline of 4 applies to zero-parameter tools, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 what the tool provides: total TVL, largest protocols with 1d/7d change, DEX venues, and RWA subset on Robinhood Chain. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but the resource and scope are unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover markets, tokens, and agents.

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 description explicitly says 'Use for market structure, venue depth, and trend analysis,' providing clear contexts for use. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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