defi_tvl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. It doesn't state that this is a read-only operation, whether auth/keys are required, rate limits, or freshness of the DefiLlama data. Only the implicit read nature can be inferred from the data-retrieval framing.

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 core sentence is repeated verbatim after an em dash ('— DefiLlama data: TVL by chain...'), which is pure duplication and wastes the opening line's value. The example is useful, but the redundant copy is a clear structural flaw and the definition is not front-loaded with an action verb.

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 zero-required-param data tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema and no annotations, the description gives adequate orientation (what data categories exist) but omits response shape, pagination behavior of `limit`, and any auth or safety notes. It is minimally sufficient but leaves real gaps.

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 the four parameters (view, chain, limit, project) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of the three data categories loosely maps to the `view` values but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names the specific resource and its scope: DefiLlama TVL by chain, stablecoin circulating supply, and yield pools. An agent can identify this as a multi-view DeFi data fetch tool and no sibling (gas, rates, protocol_health_*) covers the same resource. It stops short of a clear verb like 'retrieve', but the resource specificity is strong.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The only usage hint is the inline example `/v1/defi-tvl?view=chains`, which shows one call form but doesn't tell the agent when this tool is the right choice versus siblings like protocol_health_scoreboard or market_overview.

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