get_staking_apy

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

The word 'estimated' discloses that the value is not guaranteed, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, with no annotations, the description does not disclose data source, freshness, failure behavior, or output shape. This is acceptable for a simple read but not highly transparent.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler. The core action and subject are front-loaded, and every word contributes to meaning.

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 read-only tool with two optional enum params, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it does not indicate what the return value looks like (e.g., a number, a map keyed by protocol), and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling comparison tool, leaving some context gaps given there is no output schema.

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 both parameters have self-explanatory enums and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

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?

Description states a specific verb and object: getting an estimated APY/rewards rate for liquid staking protocols. It is clear about the resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling compare_lst_providers, which could plausibly return similar APY data.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus compare_lst_providers, lst_defi_options, or other siblings. The description only implies the domain (liquid staking) but never states exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to an alternative.

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