defi_getYields

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions return fields (APY, TVL, pool details) but lacks details on rate limits, default behavior (e.g., limit, minTvl defaults not stated in text), or any destructive potential. The 'top' implies ranking, but not explained.

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 concise: two sentences and three examples. It front-loads the purpose. The examples are well-formatted and add clarity without being verbose. Could be tightened slightly but effective.

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 no output schema, the description covers return fields (APY, TVL, pool details). It does not mention pagination, error handling, or defaults, but the schema covers defaults (limit, minTvl). For a simple query tool, it's reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples showing parameter combinations but does not deepen semantic understanding beyond schema descriptions. The examples are helpful but not essential for parameter meaning.

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 it queries DefiLlama for top yield opportunities with filtering by chain, protocol, or asset. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like defi_compareYields (comparing yields) and defi_getProtocolTVL (getting protocol TVL).

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 provides explicit usage scenarios via examples (e.g., 'Get all yields on Base', 'Get Aave yields'), but does not state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives like defi_compareYields. The examples implicitly guide selection.

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