get_yields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states what the tool returns (pool name, chain, project, APY breakdown, TVL, stablecoin indicator) and discloses a notable default exclusion (impermanent-loss pools). It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects, but the read-only nature is implied by 'Search' and the absence of mutation verbs.

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 concise sentences: purpose, return fields, and filters/exclusion. Each sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy. It front-loads the main operation and efficiently communicates key behaviors, making it quick to parse.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns, and how to filter. It also provides a default behavior (exclusion of impermanent-loss pools). Minor gaps include lack of default sort order or exact matching semantics, but the description is complete enough for effective 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of filters ('chain, project, minimum TVL, or minimum APY') simply restates what the schema already documents. It adds no new syntactic or semantic details beyond the schema, such as value formats or matching behavior.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource: 'yield/APY opportunities across DeFi lending pools and staking.' It enumerates return fields and filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_bridges or get_dex_volumes, which address different DeFi data domains.

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 establishes a clear context: this is the tool to search for yield/APY opportunities. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the context is unambiguous and sufficient for an agent to select it. It also notes a behavioral default ('Impermanent-loss pools excluded by default') which implies how results are pre-filtered.

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