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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful context: it says it holds no key and that 'swap' returns unsigned transactions rather than executing a signed trade. That clarifies the safety boundary beyond the annotations, though it does not cover rate limits or error behavior.

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 compact and front-loads the key mode selector, with no filler sentences. The dense punctuation and shorthand make it slightly cryptic, but it remains efficient.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description identifies the mode-specific parameters and the read-only/no-key behavior. It does not explain return shapes, defaults, or error/edge behavior, so it is usable but incomplete for a complex multiplexer.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning, and it does map most parameters to modes: quote uses frm/to/amount and side='out' for exact output; candles uses pool/tf; swap uses quote parameters plus wallet. It still omits format details such as timeframe values, amount units, and pool identifier expectations.

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 states a specific verb/resource in 'Trade reads' and enumerates the selectable data modes via 'what' (tokens, pools, quote, candles, swap, pnl, badges, etc.). It is clear that this is a multiplexed read tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as exchange.

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 mode list implies usage by showing which 'what' value to choose for tokens, pools, quotes, candles, swaps, and wallet-based reads. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison to sibling tools.

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