defillama_get_protocol_tvl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get TVL data' with no disclosure of return format, time range, units, error handling, or rate limits. This is minimal behavioral context.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the returned TVL data contains (e.g., current vs historical, units, structure), leaving the agent uncertain about the output.

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 one 'protocol' string with no description (0% coverage). The description adds 'specific protocol', which clarifies it takes a single protocol identifier, but it does not specify format, valid values, or examples, leaving ambiguity.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('TVL data' for a specific protocol). It distinguishes from siblings like defillama_get_protocols (listing protocols) and defillama_get_chain_tvl (TVL by chain).

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 phrase 'for a specific protocol' implies when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The sibling names help, but the description itself lacks direct usage rules.

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