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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is a read-only price query and adds useful context about the data source ('deepest real AMM pool'). However, it does not describe the return format, freshness guarantees, or any limitations beyond the mention of TVL and 24h change.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose first and adds supporting metrics. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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, no-output-schema informational endpoint, the description is largely complete: it names the output values (price, 24h change, TVL) and the source. It does not describe the exact response shape or units, but that is minor for such a simple tool.

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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what an empty schema already communicates. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly implies a no-input query with no missing parameter information.

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 states the resource (live AMAN price) and the specific metrics returned (24h change, TVL), making the tool's function evident. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aman_market or aman_token, but the focus on 'AMAN price' is distinctive enough.

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 about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (aman_market, aman_token, aman_tokens). The description implies it should be used when a current AMAN price is needed, but it never names alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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