track_liquidity_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only query or a subscription/monitoring operation (contrast the start_* monitoring siblings), nor does it disclose return format, polling behavior, or rate limits.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and scope with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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, so the description should clarify what 'liquidity changes' returns (net inflows/outflows, reserve deltas, timestamps) and whether 'track' means a one-shot pull or ongoing monitoring. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves the agent guessing.

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%, with both poolAddress and the defaulted hours window documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or default-override guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (track) and resource (liquidity changes) scoped to KAYEN pools, which is more precise than a generic tracking tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling tracking tools such as track_whale_movements or track_social_momentum beyond the resource noun.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pool_apy, get_historical_price_data, or detect_arbitrage. No prerequisites, no mention of what a 'liquidity change' event constitutes, and no exclusions are stated.

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