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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, while the description implies a read-only data query ('events'). This is a direct contradiction, as events are typically informational and non-destructive. The description provides no clarification about side effects, permissions, or other behavioral traits, so it fails to align with 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 description is concise, consisting of one sentence plus two arrows. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently references alternatives. However, the arrows are cryptic and could be clearer, so it slightly loses points for structure.

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 and minimal description, the tool's return structure is unspecified. The description doesn't explain what 'events' includes, how pagination works, or the interplay between required token_address and optional pair_address. The alternative references are helpful but do not compensate for the missing operational context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (e.g., how pair_address relates to token_address or pagination behavior). Baseline for full coverage is 3; the description does not compensate beyond that.

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 'AMM pool deposit and withdrawal events,' which indicates the tool returns liquidity-related events, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list.' The name suggests pair liquidity, creating ambiguity about whether it returns current liquidity or event history. It distinguishes from get_kline and get_tx_stats but not from other market tools.

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 description explicitly maps alternative tools for different needs: 'Candlesticks→get_kline' and 'Volume stats→get_tx_stats.' This tells when NOT to use this tool, implying it should be used for AMM pool deposit/withdrawal events. However, it doesn't provide explicit scenarios beyond those alternatives.

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