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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive. The description adds substantial context beyond them: per-call pricing, a 10-free/day quota, an x402 payment-required fallback, and error semantics (isError on invalid input or upstream failure, and that failures are not charged). Gaps remain only around auth details.

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?

Front-loads the core capability before cost and error notes, and every sentence carries information. It is dense, packing pricing, quota, routing and error handling into one paragraph, but nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the use case, the closed-position mode, cost/payment path and error behavior, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully explains the history flag (closed positions with deposits, withdrawals, fees and PnL per pool), which adds semantic value beyond the schema's terse 'true = closed-position history'.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: open Meteora DLMM positions for any wallet, enumerating returned data (value, unclaimed fees, PnL, in/out of range) and the closed-position variant. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling dlmm_whales, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 'When to use' clause names the exact scenario (a wallet's Meteora positions) and the alternative for the adjacent goal (find skilled LPs via dlmm_whales). It also states the condition (history=true) that selects the closed-position mode.

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