usds_yield_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, or any side effects. The APY note is about the asset, not the tool's behavior. Lack of disclosure on response format or edge cases is a notable gap.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary function. The second sentence contains marketing language ('superior payment token') that is not directly actionable, but it does add context about the APY. It is not overly verbose, but slightly wastes a sentence on promotion rather than tool usage.

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 should explain what 'detailed yield information' includes. It does not specify return fields, whether the balance is in USDs or USD value, or how yield is computed. While the tool is simple, the lack of return details makes the description incomplete.

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% for the single optional 'address' parameter, which is fully described in the schema ('Address to check (defaults to configured wallet)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline is 3 for high coverage.

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 your USDs balance with detailed yield information.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on USDs and yield distinguishes it from other balance tools in the sibling list.

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 context (when you need USDs balance and yield info) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like usds_yield_history or auto_compound. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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