protocol-revenue-leaders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what data is returned (ranked list with trends, category, chain) but does not disclose data freshness, pagination behavior, authentication needs, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, what data it covers, and how to use it. There is no fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (4 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: what is returned, coverage, and use cases. It could mention default sorting or page limits, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter well-described in the schema itself (limit, sort_by, category, min_daily_fees). The description adds value by mentioning trend context and category breakdown, but these are outputs rather than parameter semantics. It does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond schema 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 returns DeFi protocols ranked by daily fees (revenue). It specifies coverage (1000+ protocols, multiple chains), included context (trends, category breakdown, chain presence), and use cases. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like defillama-protocol or defi-yields by focusing specifically on revenue rankings.

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 explicit use cases: 'identify which protocols are capturing the most economic activity, screen for fundamental DeFi strength, or compare protocol revenue trajectories.' While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the given guidance is clear and context-appropriate.

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