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

Annotations mark the tool readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description describes creating a monitor with a baseline snapshot, a 30-day expiration, and webhook POSTs — persistent state and external side effects. This contradicts the read-only semantics, and the description doesn't explain why it is classified read-only.

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 front-loads the value proposition and then covers mechanics, expiration, input, and pricing in a compact paragraph. It's longer than minimal but every sentence adds operational context.

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 an output schema present and all parameters documented, the description covers creation, trigger condition, expiration, pricing, and authentication. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though the monitor-id polling flow is only hinted via the schema.

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 already documents token, dropPct, webhook, and check with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds only 'Required input: token' and that webhooks fire on collapse, adding little beyond the schema.

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?

Description opens with 'Get alerted the moment liquidity is pulled' and specifies it watches a Base token's liquidity, posting webhooks on collapse. It explicitly contrasts with price movement ('Not price moving — the pool being drained out from under you'), distinguishing it from price-alert siblings.

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?

States the monitoring use case and what condition triggers it, and notes the 'omit to poll' option via webhook optionality. It doesn't name alternatives but draws a clear line against price-focused tools, so an agent can infer when to use it.

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