defi_yields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds context about data source (DeFiLlama, 15,000+ pools) and scale (40+ chains), which helps set expectations. However, it does not disclose return format, ordering, or edge cases, leaving some behavioral details unspecified.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and filters. Every element adds value, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a solid overview but lacks details like what 'top' means, the return structure, or default ordering. It is adequate for a simple read-only data tool but not fully complete.

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 the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description merely lists the filter names (chain, project, symbol, min APY, min TVL, stablecoins) without adding new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top DeFi yields'), with clear scope ('across 40+ chains'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (crypto_prices, market_sentiment, etc.) by explicitly focusing on DeFi yields and listing relevant filters.

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 that this tool is for DeFi yield data, making it obvious when to use it over siblings. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the domain is well-defined and the filters indicate appropriate use cases.

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