Uniswap v3 price impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that by disclosing that this is an on-chain QuoterV2 call and enumerating the returned quantities (amount out, mid vs execution price, price impact, ticks crossed, gas estimate), which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the operation and its outputs without filler. The dense output list is appropriate rather than padding, though the colon-separated enumeration reads as a fragment list.

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 5-parameter tool with 40% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the return values reasonably but leaves gaps: supported-chain behavior, token addressing, fee defaulting, and single-pool vs routed quote limitations are unaddressed.

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 only 40% (fee and amountIn are documented, but chain, tokenIn and tokenOut are not), so the description bears extra burden. It does not explain token address format, chain values, or that fee may default when omitted; 'single pool' only vaguely hints that pool identity is required.

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 names a specific verb and resource: an on-chain Uniswap v3 QuoterV2 quote for a single pool, and enumerates the computed quantities. It is unambiguous against siblings like bridge_quotes or dex_volumes, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 phrase 'for a single pool' implies the tool is scoped to one pool rather than multi-hop routing, which is a mild usage constraint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative, so the agent must infer applicability.

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