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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the gate mechanics: contract identity check, withdraw/deposit door check, chain canonicalization, and unknown-skip. Also lists return fields. This provides good transparency beyond the basic operation.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is structured well.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains all key return values (viable, reason(s), per-chain doors, contract identity verdicts, chosen route). The tool has moderate complexity and the description covers it thoroughly, making it complete for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds extra context: buy_ex is the withdraw side and sell_ex is the deposit side, with examples (e.g., gateio, bithumb). This adds value beyond the schema's 'venue' description.

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 tool's purpose: returns a cross-venue PAIR GATE verdict on whether a BUY-to-SELL trade is executable. It specifies inputs (base, buy_ex, sell_ex) and outputs, and distinguishes from siblings by being the primary identity+mobility check before any cross-venue trade.

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 states this is the primary check before any cross-venue trade, giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though sibling tools do not overlap.

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