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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the description is free to add non-obvious context, which it does: it discloses per-call pricing (0.020 USDC, included in subscriptions) and explains the verdict output including the 'unknown when data is missing' fallback. This is meaningful detail beyond the 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 definition is front-loaded with the supported venues and the metric list, followed by a compact return-value and pricing note. Two sentences plus a pricing clause, with no filler, though the metric enumeration is dense.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does reasonably well by naming the metrics and the verdict enum with its 'unknown' state. The only modest gap is that the shape of the returned reasons is not described, but for a two-parameter analytical tool this is close to complete.

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 (pool address and width_pct) are already fully documented in the schema, including the default of 10 and the constraint bounds. The description's phrase 'range of the given width' confirms but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

The description names the specific protocols supported (Raydium CLMM, Orca Whirlpool, Meteora DLMM) and enumerates the exact analytics computed: liquidity by price, time-in-range over 7/30 days, fee yield, impermanent loss, and rebalance count. This is a concrete verb+resource statement that an agent can distinguish from pool_health or score_performance without opening the schema.

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 purpose ('Which range to hold') implies the decision context for using the tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over siblings like pool_health or when it is not applicable. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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