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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'returns' which implies a read operation, but it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to convey important behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes examples for clarity, with no wasted words.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple list tool. It could be improved by specifying the return format (e.g., array of strings) or clarifying that the list is for the current user/chain configuration, but it is not incomplete.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% because the schema is empty. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it could provide more context about the output format or the nature of the liquidity sources list. It adds basic value by naming example sources.

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 explicitly states it 'returns the liquidity sources currently enabled for Fuse-chain trades' and provides examples like voltage.finance and sub-pools. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with trading, prices, or contract deployment.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are related trade tools (e.g., fuse_get_trade_quote, fuse_trade_indicative_price), but the description does not explain when to prefer this one or when not to use it.

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