getEarnProduct

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already present, the description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that no authentication is required, which helps an agent decide it can call this tool without credentials. It does not cover pagination, rate limits, or data freshness, but for a simple read-only query the added access context is valuable.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action and key output fields are front-loaded, and the authentication note earns its place as an access constraint.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview but leaves notable gaps: parameter semantics are unexplained, and no distinction is made from sibling earn-product tools. The 'etc.' also leaves the return shape only partially specified, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 0%, and the description never explains the `category` or `coin` parameters; it only mentions output-oriented fields like APR, stake amount, and product status. The enum values FlexibleSaving and OnChain are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions or clarify how `coin` filters results.

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 ('Query') and a concrete resource ('earn product information'), and gives example fields such as estimated APR and min/max stake amount. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from similarly named earn-product siblings like getAdvanceEarnProduct or getTokenProduct.

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 only usage-related guidance is 'No authentication required,' which is an invocation detail rather than a selection guideline. The description does not mention when to prefer this tool over the many sibling earn/token/product endpoints, nor does it give any exclusions or alternatives.

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