t2000

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'moves' assets, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens during execution. The description is insufficient for a tool that performs financial transactions.

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?

Two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the primary action, the second explains the automated checking and triggering logic. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool that performs financial asset movements with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'moves' entails (transfers, swaps?), what protocols are considered, how APY is calculated, what happens to assets during movement, or what the tool returns. The description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered.

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%, providing good documentation for both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (like explaining APY calculation methods or protocol selection logic). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('move', 'checks', 'moves') and resources ('earning investment positions', 'earning assets', 'protocols'). It distinguishes from siblings like t2000_invest (general investing) and t2000_rebalance (likely a different rebalancing approach) by specifying it's about moving assets to higher-yield protocols based on APY comparison.

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 usage when seeking to optimize APY across protocols, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like t2000_rebalance or t2000_invest. It provides context about checking all earning assets, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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