get_liquidity_locks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of data returned (locked amounts, duration, owner) and the plan restriction, which adds context beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or the read-only nature explicitly, though 'Get' implies 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 is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and object, and packs in the key return fields and plan restriction without unnecessary words.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns. It lacks details on pagination or the exact response format, but for a read-only query tool with simple parameters, this is largely sufficient.

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 no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, such as the meaning of networkId or the cursor pagination parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get liquidity locks for a pair') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_liquidity_metadata or get_pair_metadata. It also specifies the core information returned (locked amounts, duration, owner).

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 mentions a plan restriction ('Codex Growth and Enterprise Plans only'), which is a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other liquidity/pair tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.

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