t2000_all_rates

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is 'for informational comparisons' and notes USDC-only deposits, implying read-only behavior. This is sufficient for a simple tool with no parameters, though more detail on output or limitations could improve transparency.

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 sentences plus a note—extremely concise. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use case, and a clarifying limitation. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and a key constraint. It does not describe the output format or what 'all protocols' entails, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 tool has no parameters (input schema empty), so parameter semantics are not applicable. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate given zero parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 states 'Compare USDC (and other) interest rates across all protocols side-by-side', using a specific verb and resource. It provides a use case and mentions USDC-only deposits, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling t2000_rates tool, which may cause confusion.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user asks "am I getting the best rate?" or wants to compare protocols.' It also notes that t2000_save is the action tool, making clear when to use this informational tool versus another.

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