list_yields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states it lists 'best' opportunities but does not explain how 'best' is determined, data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. As a read operation, it fails to disclose whether the data is real-time or cached.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded, but the second sentence ('DefiLlama yields + BCA risk overlay. Starter tier.') reads like fragments. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and structure. Every sentence serves a purpose, but more structured detail would improve usability.

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 tool has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not adequately compensate. It lacks information on return format, error handling, or data interpretation. The 'Starter tier' label is vague. The tool is embedded in a large ecosystem (many siblings), but the description does not leverage that context.

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?

The schema has three parameters (chain, limit, min_apy) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description only hints at 'chain' and 'risk tier', but 'risk tier' is not a parameter and 'min_apy' is omitted entirely. No explanation is given for 'limit' or how to use these parameters. This is severely lacking.

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 identifies the tool's function: listing best staking/LP/vault opportunities with filters by chain and risk tier. It specifies data sources (DefiLlama yields + BCA risk overlay) and indicates a simplified version ('Starter tier'), making the purpose distinct and unambiguous. No sibling tools overlap with this function.

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 implicitly suggests usage for quick overviews ('Starter tier') but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, and there are no similar sibling tools to differentiate from. The hint about 'best' opportunities sets some expectation but lacks clarity on selection criteria.

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