get_lending_rates

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 does not mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose the network default (BSC), the optionality of 'asset', or how different protocols may handle parameters. Since it adds no behavioral context beyond the core action, it falls short.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is highly concise and easy to parse, earning a top score for efficiency.

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 simple read tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks important context like the required 'protocol' parameter, the default network, and the special meaning of 'asset' for Aave. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, more contextual detail would be beneficial, but the core purpose is still clear.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does reinforce that the tool retrieves rates, which complements the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and specific resource ('supply and borrow rates for a lending market'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_lending_protocols or get_lending_position. It is a precise and unambiguous statement of purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of which protocols or networks are supported. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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