hyperd.yield.recommend

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 discloses that the tool costs $0.05 in USDC, which is important for agent decision-making. It describes the filtering and ranking process without omitting critical behavioral traits. It could detail the exact output format but is sufficient.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then details and cost. Every sentence provides unique value; no redundancy or unnecessary 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 absence of an output schema, the description explains the output as 'top picks plus projected $ yield over your duration.' While this is high-level, it covers the key result. Cost and filtering process are also explained. Could be slightly more precise on output structure, but overall complete.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema, but the description adds context: e.g., 'risk tier (low/medium/high)' matches the enum, and 'stables default false (true for low risk)' clarifies a non-obvious behavior. The description enriches the schema's meaning.

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's purpose: 'Get an opinionated DeFi yield recommendation.' It specifies the filtering criteria (risk tier, TVL, IL exposure) and ranking by APY, distinguishing it from sibling tools like balance or quote tools.

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 implies usage for yield optimization by mentioning DeFi yield recommendation and filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools cover different domains (balance, audit, quotes), so the context is clear.

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