defi_yields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context the annotations do not: the upstream data source (DeFiLlama), the defaults applied when nothing is supplied (Base, USDC), and the purpose of min_tvl_usd as a 'safety filtering' control. It still says nothing about result ranking, freshness, or failure behavior when no pools match.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by scope and filters. The lead-in 'DeFi highest APY & yield radar' is mildly promotional and duplicates 'yield' information, but the overall size is appropriate and nothing critical is buried.

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, zero-required-parameter, read-only lookup with a fully documented schema, the description supplies the essentials: what it finds, on which tokens/chains, what the TVL filter is for, and the defaults. With no output schema the description could say more about what a returned 'top pool' record contains (APY field, protocol name), which is the main remaining gap.

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% — every parameter already has a description including defaults and ranges — so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the meaningful inputs (token, blockchain, minimum TVL) and frames min_tvl_usd as safety-oriented, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Finds top lending and liquidity pools for any token ... filtered by blockchain and minimum TVL', and names the data source (DeFiLlama). An agent can tell what the tool produces. The opening tagline 'DeFi highest APY & yield radar' is marketing framing rather than a distinct capability, and no sibling tool (e.g. token_alpha) is explicitly contrasted.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for any token (USDC, ETH, USDT, WBTC) filtered by blockchain and minimum TVL', which suggests when the tool is relevant (searching for yield on a token). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to or away from any alternative tool such as token_alpha or prediction_markets.

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