get_protocol_fees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the ranking criterion, the fields returned, and that revenue is included 'where available,' which is important behavioral context. It lacks details on data freshness or units but is fairly transparent for a read-only data 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise without unnecessary fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description fully explains the return values: protocol name, 24h/7d/30d fees, and 24h revenue where available. This is sufficient for a simple tool with one optional parameter.

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 covers the only parameter (limit) with a description and default, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb and resource: 'Get protocol fee and revenue data ranked by 24h fees.' It also lists the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_protocol_tvl or get_yields.

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 clear use cases: 'comparing protocol economics, identifying which DeFi protocols generate the most fees, and analyzing revenue trends.' This implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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