defi_yields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses outlier exclusion behavior (DefiLlama flags or >500% APY), the include_outliers override, per-call cost ($0.0055 USDC), and p99 latency (4000ms). It stops short of stating read-only/non-destructive status, rate limits, or result ordering/pagination.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the purpose and data source before filters, defaults, and cost. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the run-on filter list is slightly hard to scan.

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?

For an 8-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is strong: it enumerates return fields (base/reward APY, 30-day mean, 7-day change, TVL, stablecoin flag, IL risk) and covers almost all inputs. Missing only limit behavior and result ordering, which an agent would need to predict result count.

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 coverage is only 38%, so the description must compensate, and it does for 7 of 8 params: chain, project, symbol examples, stablecoin_only, min_tvl_usd default, sort enum values, and include_outliers. The 'limit' parameter (default 10, max 50) is never mentioned, leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find DeFi yield pools') plus concrete scope (400+ protocols, 100+ chains, DefiLlama data), which cleanly separates it from neighbors like defi_tvl, token_liquidity, or crypto_prices. An agent can tell what it returns (APY split, TVL, IL risk) without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: available filters, sort default ('apy'), min_tvl_usd default (1,000,000), and outlier exclusion rules. However, it never names an alternative sibling or states when NOT to use this tool (e.g., vs defi_tvl for protocol-level TVL), so routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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