Compare exit sizes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — all sizes are measured against the same observed pool, giving a consistent baseline — but says nothing about what 'exit' means, latency, or result semantics. Adequate but thin given the low annotation burden.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause (count, unit, resource, baseline pool) carries 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?

For a 2-parameter domain tool with no output schema, the definition leaves key gaps: what the 'observed primary pool' is, how results are expressed, and what the token identifies. It is minimally sufficient to invoke but not to interpret.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load. It clarifies sizesUsd ('1 to 8 USD exit sizes') and matches the minItems/maxItems bounds, but says nothing about the required 'token' address, leaving half the parameters semantically unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (USD exit sizes) with an explicit scope of 1 to 8 sizes against 'the same observed primary pool'. It is distinguishable in substance from siblings like simulate_exit, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the contrast.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance and no alternative is named. The agent can infer that this is for comparison, but nothing tells it why to pick this over simulate_exit or explain_exit_signal.

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