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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only query (live fills) but does not detail side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or return format. The description offers basic transparency but falls short of fully compensating for the lack of annotations.

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 just two sentences, front-loading the key definition and then the usage directive. No redundant words; every sentence contributes to clarity. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more details about the output or behavior. It mentions 'matrix' but doesn't specify what form the data takes (e.g., list, table, etc.). This leaves some gaps for an agent expecting richer documentation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by implicitly defining the scope (major USDG pairs on chain 4663), which is not in the schema. This context aids understanding of what the tool operates on.

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 states it's a liquidity/route matrix for major USDG pairs on chain 4663, with the explicit purpose to find which Stock Tokens have live AMM fills. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stocktoken_price or stocktoken_quote, which serve different purposes.

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 description provides a specific use case ('Use to know which Stock Tokens have live AMM fills'), giving some guidance on when to use it. However, it does not mention any exclusions or compare to alternatives, leaving the selection partially to the agent's inference.

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