HyperEVM yields

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description reinforces with 'Read-only, public data, no API key' and explains data structure and separation of yield types, adding value beyond 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose, categories, usage guidance, and data characteristics.

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?

With no output schema, description covers expected output (ranked table with categories, yield separation). Mentions alternative tool. Lacks exact column names but sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description sets overall context but does not add individual parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists all yield opportunities on Hyperliquid/HyperEVM, ranked, covering specific categories (LSTs, lending, LP/looping). It distinguishes from siblings like hyperevm_pool_history (mentioned) and by context from hyperevm_protocols, hl_market, hl_staking.

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?

Explicitly says 'Start here for where is the best yield' and suggests hyperevm_pool_history for historical verification. Also notes it's read-only, public, no API key, giving clear usage context.

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