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

Beyond the read-only/non-destructive annotations, it discloses the estimation method (constant product), the conservative bias for concentrated liquidity pools, the error behavior ('Errors with Not charged if no pool exists'), and the per-call cost and payment rails (x402, $0.008 USDC). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before paying for a call.

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-loads the core purpose and outputs, then layers operational details (errors, pricing, sample). The single dense sentence plus payment/example sentences are somewhat run-on, but every clause carries information useful to the caller.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates per-pool liquidity, per-size price impact, and max-trade thresholds, and also covers error and billing behavior. Nothing needed to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: that each size in sizes_usd yields an estimated price impact, and that the tool reports the largest trade at 1% and 5% impact. The free-sample example input further aids formatting.

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 resource (pool depth and slippage for a token) with concrete outputs: per-pool USD liquidity, price impact per size in sizes_usd, and largest trade at 1%/5% impact. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like token_simulate or token_precheck without opening their schemas.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to size a trade or check if an exit is possible', giving a clear use context. It does not name alternative tools (e.g. token_simulate) or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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