defi-yield-strategies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: it returns per-position allocation, APY, weekly yield estimate, chain, and 7-day APY trend, and mentions coverage of 16K+ pools across 400+ protocols via DeFiLlama. It does not mention read-only nature or rate limits, but the behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, followed by concise details on risk tiers and output. Every sentence is informative and 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return format (per-position allocation, APY, weekly yield, chain, trend) and the input parameters. For a tool with 4 simple parameters and no nested objects, it is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining risk tiers in detail with specific thresholds (low: stablecoins only, APY < 30%, TVL ≥ $50M; medium: TVL ≥ $10M, APY < 80%; high: TVL ≥ $1M, all assets). This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 as a 'DeFi yield strategy planner' that returns an optimized allocation given portfolio size and risk tolerance. It specifies the input and output, and the detail about risk tiers distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'defi-yields' or 'defi-portfolio'.

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 on when to use the tool by defining three risk tiers with specific criteria (TVL, APY, asset type). It implicitly guides selection based on user preferences, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives.

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