hyperd.protocol.tvl

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.01) and data source (DefiLlama), implying it's a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or potential impacts, leaving some ambiguity.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should elaborate on return values. It mentions 'TVL, audits, chain distribution' but omits format, pagination, or error scenarios. This leaves the agent partially uninformed about what to expect.

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% with both parameters documented. The description adds value by providing real-world examples and clarifying the behavior of `list=true` (returns top 50). This enriches the schema's baseline.

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 retrieves TVL, audits, and chain distribution from DefiLlama for a specific DeFi protocol. It provides examples of slugs (e.g., 'aave', 'morpho-blue') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the data source and type.

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 two usage modes: providing a slug for detailed info or setting list=true for top 50 protocols. This gives clear context for parameter selection, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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