Liquidity risk of a Stellar asset

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context: the LEDGER_NOT_AVAILABLE error for unreconstructed ledgers, the historical-vs-latest mode switch, and the mandatory provenance-quoting convention. It does not describe pagination or rate limits, but those are less relevant for a read.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the return-value enumeration, while long, is the substance of an output-schema-less tool. The verbose field list is dense but each clause maps to a distinct returned metric; no filler sentences.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating risk band, confidence, flags, depth tiers, collateral sizing, concentration, volume/supply and last trade, plus the ledger error. It could note the quote-asset scope in the return but is otherwise complete for calling the 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% and the schema already documents assetId, quote (USDC default) and ledger thoroughly. The description only restates the ledger mode ('historical reconstruction') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('The full Keel risk reading for one asset') and enumerates exactly what the reading contains, so an agent knows the scope of the result. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as estimate_trade_depth or check_collateral_size, which return some of the same sub-metrics.

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?

Gives a clear conditional mode ('Pass ledger to read a historical reconstruction instead of the latest scan') and a routing pointer to find_asset when only a code is known. It stops short of saying when to prefer this tool over the depth/collateral siblings.

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