defillama_get_chain_tvl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only implies a read operation ('Get') but does not describe output format, return type, units, pagination, or any rate limits or safety considerations. This is a significant gap for a data-fetching tool.

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 with no irrelevant information. It is front-loaded and scannable, earning its place without padding.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not specify what 'TVL data' includes (e.g., current value, historical series, currency units), nor how the chain parameter should be formatted. This leaves critical gaps for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has one parameter ('chain') with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any meaning beyond echoing the parameter name. It fails to explain accepted values (e.g., chain IDs, slugs, case sensitivity) or provide examples, making the parameter unusable without additional external knowledge.

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 ('Get') and resource ('TVL data') with an explicit scope ('specific chain'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like defillama_get_protocol_tvl, which target protocols rather than chains.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and scope.

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