defi_compareYields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the action but does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., list of protocols with yield rates), whether it is read-only, or any limitations. Basic transparency but lacks detail.

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 sentences plus an example, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficiently includes a concrete example.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what is returned. It does not describe the output format (e.g., list of protocols, yields, or ranking). For a comparison tool, this is a notable gap. The description is adequate but not complete.

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 three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning asset and chain in the example; the minTvl parameter is not described. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare yields') and resource ('a specific asset across protocols on a chain'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like defi_getYields or defi_getProtocolTVL. The example reinforces the purpose.

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 states it's 'useful for finding the best place to deposit a specific token,' providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context from sibling tools makes the differentiation clear.

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