get_protocol_tvl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output includes TVL and time-based changes, but does not specify whether the TVL is current or historical, or detail any read-only nature. It adds some behavioral context but has gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and optional parameter usage with no wasted words.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the essential information: what the tool returns and how to filter. It slightly lacks detail on output format, but remains sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 description is not required to add much. However, it explains that the optional chain filter narrows results to protocols deployed on that chain, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's description.

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 returns TVL plus 1d/7d/30d changes for any DefiLlama-listed protocol, with an optional chain filter. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_top_protocols or get_chain_defi_status.

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 explains when to use the optional chain filter, implying context-based usage. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling tools are sufficiently different, so the guidance is clear enough for selecting this tool.

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