list_yields

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

Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by naming data sources (DefiLlama + BCA) and mentioning a risk overlay. However, it does not explain what 'Best' means (sorting/criteria), the 'Starter tier' limitation, or any side effects (e.g., no destructive actions noted). Adds some value beyond the name 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and filters. The second adds valuable context on data sources. Highly efficient.

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?

With no output schema and few parameters, the description could be more complete. It omits explanation of what 'Starter tier' means, how results are sorted, or the return format. Adequate for a simple list tool but lacks depth for confident use.

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 parameter descriptions are absent (0% coverage), and the tool description does not elaborate on any parameter (chain, min_apy, limit). The mention of 'by chain' aligns with the chain parameter, but 'risk tier' is not a parameter, potentially confusing. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property titles.

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 lists staking/LP/vault opportunities, specifying the data sources (DefiLlama yields + BCA risk overlay) and a filter criterion (chain and risk tier, with 'Starter tier' hint). This sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_defi_protocol or compare_protocols.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is implied, lacking usage context (e.g., 'Use for high-level yield scanning; for detailed protocol analysis use get_defi_protocol') leaves the agent uninformed about tool selection.

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