get_tvl_by_chain

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 transparently describes what the tool returns (chain TVL, native token symbol, IDs, top 10 tokens), implying a read-only operation. It does not mention rate limits or edge cases, but for a simple read tool, this is adequate.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return details, and use case. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, 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?

This is a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains what the tool does, what input is needed, and what output to expect, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'chain' parameter, including examples. The description repeats those examples but adds no new parameter-level information (e.g., format, constraints, default behavior) beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gets total TVL for a specific blockchain, listing example chains. It is easily distinguished from siblings like get_protocol_tvl (protocol-level) and get_dex_volumes (DEX volumes), establishing a unique purpose.

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 gives a clear use case ('comparing chain activity and identifying where capital is concentrated'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool. Sibling names imply differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit exclusions.

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