discover_yields

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool returns a sorted list with specific fields, discloses tier limitations (FREE vs PRO with result limits and risk filtering differences), and mentions the scope (86 chains, 6,500+ pools). It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but provides substantial operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by filtering details, return values, and tier limitations. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff—making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, parameters, return format, and behavioral constraints (tier differences). The output schema likely details the return structure, so the description need not exhaustively explain return values, and it adequately addresses gaps from missing annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by explaining all 5 parameters' semantics: chain filtering, minimum TVL, minimum APY, maximum risk grade (with scale A-F), and implicitly limit through tier details. It adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying risk grade values, tier impacts on filtering, and default behaviors (e.g., FREE tier limitations).

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 purpose with specific verbs ('discover top DeFi yield opportunities') and resources ('across 86 chains and 6,500+ pools'), distinguishing it from siblings like analyze_pool (specific analysis) or defi_overview (general overview). It explicitly defines the scope as discovery of opportunities rather than analysis or simulation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool—for discovering yield opportunities with filtering capabilities. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on discovery rather than analysis (analyze_pool), calculation (calculate_impermanent_loss), or simulation (simulate_profit). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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