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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what the tool returns: exit_slippage_pct, max exit under 5%/10% slippage, liquidity, thin-volume warning, and verdict categories. It also communicates the nontrivial behavior that a token can be sellable yet still trap a user due to thin liquidity, which adds meaningful context beyond the name.

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 compact and every sentence serves a purpose: it frames the problem, clarifies what it is not, lists concrete outputs, gives usage timing, and states supported chains. The example 'thin pool: exiting $5k costs 20%+' is illustrative rather than 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the key return fields and verdict values, explaining the intended pre-entry use case, and specifying supported address formats. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does, when to call it, and what to expect back.

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 token and size_usd. The description reinforces that size matters and ties it to slippage, but it does not add meaningful new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 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 clearly identifies the tool as a size-aware exit-liquidity check that returns slippage estimates and verdicts, not merely a binary 'sellable' check. It distinguishes itself from simple checks by emphasizing position-size dependency, which separates it from sibling tools like check_mint and score_mint.

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?

It explicitly states when to call the tool: 'Call BEFORE entering to size the position to your real exit capacity.' This gives clear timing guidance. It does not name specific alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to understand the intended workflow.

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