lst_defi_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Find' implies a read-only lookup and 'where to use' describes the output nature, but it does not explicitly state that no transactions are executed or describe the result format. The absence of safety annotations makes this a modest gap.

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 front-loaded sentence conveys action, resource, tokens, and purpose with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 lookup with two optional enums, the description explains the output ('where to use...') and the tool's purpose, while the schema covers the remaining parameter details. Without an output schema, a bit more detail on the returned structure could be added, but the current description is sufficient.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions and enums, so the description need not repeat them; this maps to the baseline 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond naming the tokens that align with the lst_token enum.

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 states a specific action ('Find') on a specific resource ('DeFi opportunities for liquid staking tokens') and names the exact tokens (stNEAR/LiNEAR) and goal (additional yield). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like stake_for_lst, unstake_lst, and get_staking_apy.

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 gives clear context: use this when you want to identify where LSTs can be deployed for additional yield. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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