Liquidity analysis

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

Annotations already signal readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable edge-case behavior: a token with no pool returns empty liquidity data, which is itself a warning. It also notes the API cost of one unit on any chain. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, though it stops short of describing exact response structure 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage boundaries and a key edge case. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the title or schema.

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 two-parameter, read-only analysis tool with a rich schema and output schema present, the description fully covers purpose, alternatives, common failure mode, and cost. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema already explains chain enum values, defaults, address formats, and validation rules. The description only restates that the arguments are address and chain and adds a cost hint, which does not materially expand parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Liquidity pool analysis for one token, including burn and lock verification and pool depth." It clearly distinguishes this tool from likely confusable siblings by naming get_token_price and get_holders and stating what it is not for.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: to answer whether liquidity is locked, how deep it is, and whether the position could be pulled. It also names alternatives for price/market cap/volume and holder concentration, giving clear exclusions.

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