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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the data is dynamic ('where liquidity is live right now') and frames the tool as a lookup source, implying a read-only, current-state query. It is slightly light on details like data freshness or error behavior, but adequate for a zero-parameter reference tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads what the tool returns and then states the recommended usage, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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 a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return content: networks, settlement engine addresses, and tokens. It does not specify the exact response shape, but an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 zero parameters and the schema documents this completely, so there is no need for the description to explain arguments. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are required.

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 identifies what the tool provides: the currently live liquidity networks, each network's settlement engine address, and the usable tokens. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as the authoritative source for chain and token identifiers rather than positions, quotes, or stats.

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 phrase 'Use this instead of hardcoding chain or token identifiers' gives explicit, actionable guidance about when to call this tool. It does not mention exclusions or compare directly to sibling tools, but the intended context is clear.

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