get_liquidity_metadata

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful content disclosure by noting that both unlocked and locked liquidity data are returned, but it does not explain what 'liquidity metadata' concretely includes (e.g., amounts, time locks, formats) or any other behavioral traits like network-specific behavior or potential errors.

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, front-loaded, efficient sentence that states the core purpose and a key detail in under 10 words. No filler or redundant phrases.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should offer more context about what 'unlocked and locked liquidity data' means in practice. The current text is adequate but vague, leaving the agent uncertain about the exact return shape. Given the low complexity (2 params), this is acceptable but not complete.

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 'address' and 'networkId' having clear descriptions. The tool description itself adds no extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 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 specifies a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('liquidity metadata for a pair'), and adds the scope 'including both unlocked and locked liquidity data,' which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_liquidity_locks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate itself beyond that scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pair_metadata or get_liquidity_locks. It implies usage for a specific pair, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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