defi_get_protocol_tvl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get historical TVL data' and does not reveal response format, time range, granularity, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly stated.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence: 'Get historical TVL data for a protocol.' It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, with no verbose or redundant content. It is appropriately brief for a tool with one parameter.

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 single-parameter schema and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally viable: it tells the user what the tool does and the input is documented. However, it lacks details about the response shape, time period covered, or how to discover protocol slugs, leaving clear gaps for a complete understanding.

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 describes the only parameter as 'Protocol slug' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, nor does it explain how to find valid protocol slugs. It is consistent with the schema but adds no extra value.

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: 'Get historical TVL data for a protocol.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('historical TVL data'), and a clear scope ('for a protocol'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like defi_get_chain_tvl (chain-level) and defi_get_protocol (likely current data), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 when to use this tool: when you need historical TVL for a protocol. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no alternatives, and no exclusions. The context is clear about the basic use case but doesn't help differentiate from similar defi tools.

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