defi_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns specific data types (TVL, chains, protocols, yields), has tiered functionality (FREE vs PRO), and mentions risk grades for yields. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error conditions. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, lists return values clearly, then explains tier differences efficiently. Every sentence adds value: the first defines scope, the second enumerates returns, the third explains tier limitations. No wasted words or 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values don't need description), no annotations, and simple parameters, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers purpose, return data types, and tier limitations. The main gap is lack of explicit parameter documentation, but for a single optional parameter tool with output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. While it doesn't explicitly mention the 'chain' parameter, the description implies filtering capability through the mention of 'TVL by top 10 chains' and the tier structure. For a single optional parameter tool, this provides adequate semantic context, though not explicit parameter documentation.

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 provides a 'big-picture DeFi dashboard' with specific metrics like total TVL, TVL by chains/protocols, pool counts, and yields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by offering aggregated overview data rather than specific analysis functions like 'analyze_pool' or 'calculate_impermanent_loss'. However, it doesn't explicitly name the verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'fetch') which prevents a perfect score.

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 through the FREE/PRO tier distinction, suggesting this tool is for getting comprehensive DeFi market overviews. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'discover_yields' for yield-focused queries or 'track_whales' for whale activity. The tier information provides some guidance but not explicit when/when-not instructions.

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