defillama-protocol

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

No annotations provided, so the description must solely disclose behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, has rate limits, requires authentication, or any side effects. Only mentions returns data, which is insufficient for full behavioral disclosure.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core action and outputs. The second sentence provides a cost efficiency note that may be relevant but is not verbose.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return fields (TVL, chain breakdown, changes, fees, metadata). However, 'metadata' is vague and could be expanded. Still adequate given low tool complexity.

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% for both parameters. Description adds formatting guidance (lowercase-hyphenated slug) and clarifies default behavior for include_tvl_history. This extra context moves it above baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and lists exact resources (TVL, chain breakdown, TVL change, fees, metadata) for any protocol slug. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'defillama-coin-price' by focusing on protocol-level TVL and metadata.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., defi-yields, defi-market-pulse). The cost comparison to blockrun.ai is present but does not help an AI agent decide between siblings. Lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite info.

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