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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: volume is only reported when the venue publishes it, APR is computed from the last 24 hours of volume, and a pool whose reserves stalled while price diverged from market gets a not_trading_since marker. What is missing is any note on pagination or result size beyond the limit default already in the schema.

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 core resource and venue scope is front-loaded, and every clause carries information (venue list, metrics, data-availability caveat, stale-reserve meaning, sort options). It is a single dense run-on sentence joined by semicolons, which makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 two-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, where the data comes from, how APR is derived, and how to read the not_trading_since marker. The remaining gap is minor: it never says what a pool record looks like structurally or how many venues may be absent from a response.

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 already documents both parameters and the enum values. The description restates the same three sort_by options without adding ordering semantics beyond what the schema says ('largest first' appears in the schema too), and says nothing about limit. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names the specific resource (liquidity pools across Cantex, Tradecraft, OneSwap and Pool Party) and enumerates the metrics returned: liquidity, 24h volume, fee and LP fee APR. That is enough to distinguish it from list_tokens, venues and market_overview, though it never states the verb directly (list/retrieve) and leaves the caller to infer that this is a listing call.

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?

Usage is implied rather than spelled out: the coverage caveat ('24h volume where the venue publishes it') and the not_trading_since flag tell an agent when the data is trustworthy, and the closing 'sort_by: tvl, volume or apr' signals ordering choices. However, no sibling tool is named as an alternative and no condition is given for choosing this over venues or market_overview.

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