Price impact bracket for a trade size

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the burden is lower, and the description adds real behavioral context: no interpolation exists between rungs, so results are coarse brackets, and depth aggregates SDEX order book plus AMM pools. It doesn't mention latency, rate limits, or staleness of the measured ladder.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the bracket/methodology caveat. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical examples could arguably be trimmed.

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, the description helpfully sketches the return shape ('at most 2%/5%/10%' or 'exceeds measured depth') and the non-interpolated nature of the answer. It could go further by pointing agents to get_methodology for the ladder definition, but an agent has enough to call it 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 schema already documents every parameter (side direction, quote default to USDC, string amount, asset id format). The description reinforces the quote-asset convention but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 operation: placing a trade size between measured rungs of the depth ladder and returning a price-impact bracket. The 'bracket, never a point estimate' framing and mention of SDEX + AMM depth make it unmistakable versus siblings like get_asset_risk or check_collateral_size.

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 audience framing ('for traders and market makers') implies when the tool matters, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives are given. The dependency on find_asset appears only in the schema, not in the description.

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