get_token_liquidity

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden and it does not. It doesn't say what 'liquidity information' includes (TVL, depth, slippage, price impact), whether results are aggregated across DEXes, whether a missing network searches all chains, or whether the call is read-only and rate-limited.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Nothing wasted, though there is also very little content to structure.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should specify what liquidity metrics are returned and how multi-DEX aggregation behaves. As written, an agent knows only the topic, not the result shape or scope semantics.

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 both parameters (symbol, optional network) are already documented with examples. The description adds only the 'across all DEXes' aggregation framing, which hints that network is an optional narrowing filter, but adds no real syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('liquidity information for a token') with a scope qualifier ('across all DEXes'). It is distinguishable from pool-level siblings like get_network_pools and get_pool_analytics, but it never explicitly contrasts with those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to call this instead of get_network_pools, get_dex_info, get_pool_analytics, or compare_dex_prices. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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