spectra_get_pool_capacity

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: independent tier quoting (non-cumulative), on-chain vs. math-only estimation, and the different impact profiles of pt_buy and lp_add modes. It also notes real execution would face additional pool state changes, setting accurate expectations.

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 informative but verbose (multiple paragraphs). It uses lists and clear sections, but contains some redundancy (e.g., the note about MetaVault curators appears twice). Could be trimmed for brevity without losing essential information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, two modes, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: mode differences, tier quoting mechanics, on-chain vs. off-chain options, and links to related tools. It provides sufficient information for an agent to decide when and how to use this tool.

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 value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of steps and max_capital, clarifying the use_on_chain trade-off, and providing context-specific guidance for the mode parameter (e.g., 'Use this mode for MetaVault curator capacity analysis').

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 clearly states the tool analyzes pool capacity by quoting PT trades at increasing capital sizes, detailing two distinct modes (pt_buy and lp_add). It explicitly distinguishes the purpose for directional traders vs. LP deployers (MetaVault curators), making it easy to understand what the tool does.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for each mode and recommends lp_add for MetaVault curator capacity analysis. It also lists three alternative tools (spectra_quote_trade, spectra_scan_opportunities, mv_check_ibt_health) with specific contexts, enabling correct tool selection.

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