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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses that data is live and that the call costs $0.01 USDG. However, it does not state read-only behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination for the board.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the main scope statement is front-loaded. The cost note in the second sentence earns its place because it is not captured by schema or annotations.

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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description gives enough to attempt a call, but with no output schema and no definition of what a 'gap' contains, the agent lacks return-value and ranking semantics. The cost disclosure helps but does not fill the remaining gaps.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds context by tying 'filtered by pool depth' to min_depth_usd, but it does not explain how limit interacts with the 'widest' ranking beyond the schema's default range.

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 identifies a specific resource and scope: live gaps across all stock tokens, filtered by pool depth. It distinguishes the tool from narrower siblings like parallax_gap by saying 'across all stock tokens', though the term 'gap' is left undefined.

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 pool-depth filter and 'widest' framing imply when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of parallax_gap or other siblings. The agent must infer the comparison conditions.

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