Check USDG yield

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the live nature of the data and the $0.01 USDG cost, which is valuable. However, it doesn't state whether the call is read-only or what the return format looks like (e.g., percentage as decimal), leaving some transparency gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with the core value proposition and cost front-loaded. Every word adds essential information, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and cost. It also provides useful context about the vault's relationship to Robinhood Earn. However, it could explicitly mention the expected return format (e.g., APY as a percentage) and confirm it's a read-only operation, though neither is critical.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific information. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description's mention of the vault and cost is not parameter-related but doesn't reduce the score.

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 provides 'Live Morpho steakUSDG vault APY' with additional context about it being behind Robinhood Earn. The title 'Check USDG yield' reinforces the purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'price' or 'balance' by specifying the exact resource (yield/APY) and vault.

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 for checking the APY of the specific Morpho steakUSDG vault and discloses a cost of $0.01 USDG, which helps the agent decide if this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the specificity of the resource makes the usage scenario clear.

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