estimate_staking_yield

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying it does NOT read wallet or on-chain positions, and describes the return structure (protocol, amount, APR, projected rewards). No contradictions.

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 that are well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidance, output details, and pairing suggestion. Every sentence serves a purpose without 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description clearly states what is returned. For a simple tool with 2 parameters, the description fully covers inputs, outputs, behavioral constraints, and suggests related tools. No gaps.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (protocol enum with details, amount with example). The description does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema, so 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 projects annual yield for Lido or EigenLayer using current APRs. It specifies the use case ('what would I earn if I staked X ETH?') and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_staking_positions by noting it is purely forward-looking.

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 instructs to use for hypothetical yield questions before committing capital, and advises pairing with get_staking_positions for actual holdings. Clearly defines when to use and when not to.

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