yield_farm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool scans and returns pool name, APY, TVL, and risk level, giving a clear sense of the output. However, it does not explicitly mention that this is a read-only operation, whether it aggregates live data, or how 'highest yield' is determined. The behavior is transparent enough for a simple query tool but lacks deeper context.

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 two well-structured sentences: the first states the action and target, the second lists the return fields. There is no redundant wording, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (zero parameters, clear output, presence of an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It mentions key output fields and the network (Base). It lacks subtle details like limitations (e.g., 'only covers TVL above X') or data freshness, but these are not critical for a basic scan tool.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the description does not need to explain parameter usage. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds value by describing the output structure, which compensates for the lack of parameters.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Scan'), resource ('DeFi protocols on Base'), and objective ('highest yield opportunities'). It also lists the output fields, making it distinct from sibling tools like token_analyzer or dex_quote, which focus on different aspects of DeFi.

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 that this tool should be used when seeking yield opportunities on Base, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternative tools or exclusionary conditions, so the usage context is only 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.