usds_convert_recommendation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool calculates opportunity cost of not holding USDs, which is a useful behavioral insight. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or any data dependencies or auth requirements. This is a partial disclosure but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a specific calculation detail. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return behavior. It does not describe what the recommendation looks like (e.g., a score, a recommendation string, a report), nor does it mention data sources or assumptions underlying the opportunity cost calculation. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this leaves important gaps.

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 already documents all three parameters (token, amount, holdingPeriod) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds the concept of opportunity cost but does not provide additional per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. Thus the baseline 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 identifies the tool's function: providing a recommendation on converting a token to USDs for yield, with a specific calculation angle (opportunity cost of NOT holding USDs). This distinguishes it from related tools like usds_yield_balance or usds_yield_history, which likely report balances or historical data.

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 use case: deciding whether to convert a token to USDs. It gives context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., if you just want yield data, use usds_yield_history). It doesn't provide exclusions, so it's not a 5, but the context is clear.

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