get_public_dsr_apy

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it offers only the phrase 'Public REST' hinting at public access. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, safe, or non-mutating, nor does it disclose response format, pagination, or potential rate limits. The behavioral profile is largely implicit.

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 and very concise. It front-loads the key resource and data categories. Minor issue: 'Public REST' is slightly awkward and not grammatically refined, but the sentence earns its place by specifying the data scope.

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 simple no-parameter tool, the description covers the essential data categories, but it lacks detail on historical depth, response structure, or how it differs from get_earn_apy. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context and remains incomplete for fully guiding 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already provides complete coverage (100%) and there is nothing to clarify. The description adds context about the kinds of data returned (current, average, per-chain history), which is useful, aligning with the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 identifies the resource (DSR APY) and the action (get current, average, and history). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_earn_apy by specifying DSR APY rather than generic earn APY, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios that favor this tool or comparisons with sibling tools like get_earn_apy, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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