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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the closed-form stableswap-invariant expansion, the optional V2 benchmark, and the important edge case where unreachable depeg levels return null for certain fields while the V2 benchmark remains populated. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention authentication or rate-limit considerations. The schema's rpc_url comment covers privacy, but the main description omits side-effect and access-level details.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence establishes purpose and computation; the second covers the critical edge case. Every clause earns its place, and the structure makes the description easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming return fields (il_pct, lp_value_at_depeg, hold_value_at_depeg) in the null-case explanation and by specifying defaults and benchmark behavior. It still does not fully describe the output envelope (e.g., how scenarios are keyed), but for an LP risk tool with this complexity, the provided context is largely sufficient for an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by naming default depeg levels (2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%), the optional V2 benchmark, and the null-output behavior for unreachable levels, which enriches the meaning of depeg_levels and compare_v2. But it does not add semantic detail for parameters like lp_init_amt, pool_address, or chain_id beyond what the schema already provides.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Quantify') and identifies a precise resource: a 2-asset Curve-style Stableswap LP position's exposure to stablecoin depeg. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like AnalyzeStableswapLP (general analysis) and SimulateStableswapMove (price move simulation) by focusing on multi-level depeg IL with an optional V2 benchmark.

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 clearly conveys the intended context: use this when assessing IL from a stablecoin depeg on a 2-asset stableswap LP. It mentions the optional V2 comparison and default depeg levels, giving a solid sense of when it applies. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related but different analyses.

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