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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it queries live DEX routing across three chains, measures daily, and specifies that Kraken/Coinbase order-book comparisons appear only where the token trades there. It stops short of stating rate limits, latency, or failure behavior for unsupported tokens.

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-loaded with the core deliverable and the when-to-use clause, then the return fields, then a scope disclaimer. It is dense but every clause carries information. The return-fields sentence is long and could be tightened, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: exit friction percentage, dollars received, date measured, citation, Kraken/Coinbase comparisons, and weekly change tags with 7-day high/low/latest. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the chain enum values and the token examples. The description only echoes 'Base, Ethereum and BNB Chain', adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: it measures what a fixed-size sell of a token actually returns versus its quoted price, via live DEX routing on named chains. An agent can tell this is a liquidity/exit-friction measurement tool. It stops short of the top mark because it never distinguishes itself from the related 'exit_index' sibling, leaving some ambiguity between the two.

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?

Gives explicit use conditions: 'Use this when someone asks whether a token can really be sold, how liquid it is, or what they would get for a position.' It also negatives the scope with 'Not a price feed and not advice.' However, it names no alternative tool (e.g. exit_index) for the adjacent cases, so routing is clear but not fully resolved.

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