get_defi_yields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get current APy/APR yields' clearly indicates a read-only data fetch with no state changes, and naming the major protocols sets scope. It does not discuss data freshness, caching, sorting, or response structure, which would add context, but it does not mislead about side effects.

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 a single focused sentcence with the core action and resource front-loaded, followed by concrete protocol examples in parentheses. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 a simple read-only yield-lookup tool with zero required parameters and fully documented optional filters, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and an output-shape note, but the phrase 'current APy/APR yields' conveys the kind of data returned well enough for this complexity.

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%, and the schema already documents all three optional parameters, their enums, and defaults. The description adds protocol-level context but no extra meaning about type, min_apy, or max_risk beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('current APY/APR yields') across major NEAR DeFi protocols, clearly identifying a broad yield-lookup operation. It distinguishes from swap and impermanent-loss tools, though it does not explicitly separate itself from the similar get_lending_rates sibling.

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 the tool is for a broad current-yield snapshot across multiple protocols, and the schema's optional filters refine that use case. It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never mentions alternatives like get_lending_rates or compare_staking_options, so routing among siblings is left to inference.

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