defi_get_yield_pool

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 mentions 'historical APY' but does not describe the return format, any side effects (though it appears read-only), or other behaviors. This is sparse for an unannotated tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves 'detailed data' ambiguous. It indirectly references a prerequisite via the schema but could be more explicit about what the response includes beyond historical APY.

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 coverage is 100%, and the poolId parameter is already well-documented in the schema ('Pool UUID from defi_get_yields'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Get detailed data for a specific yield pool including historical APY.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), targets a resource ('specific yield pool'), and specifies a distinguishing feature ('historical APY'), which separates it from sibling tools like defi_get_yields (which likely lists pools).

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 the tool is for a single existing pool, and the parameter description in the schema ('Pool UUID from defi_get_yields') indicates a prerequisite workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, missing a clear exclusion.

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