compare_yields

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or return characteristics beyond the basic comparison. The term 'risk-adjusted' is vague.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with key action. However, it is in French, potentially confusing for English-speaking agents, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

Despite high schema coverage and an output schema, the description lacks context on what the comparison entails (e.g., APY, risk score, TVL). It does not mention the allowed protocol count (2-6) or default chain behavior, leaving gaps for an agent.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool performs a side-by-side risk-adjusted comparison of protocols. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like compare_perps (perpetuals comparison) and get_best_yield (single best yield).

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or links to sibling tools. An agent lacks context to decide between compare_yields and similar tools like explain_risk.

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