m2m_get_dex_liquidity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the burden is lower. The description adds useful scope constraints: tracked-pool metrics only and no pair-level filtering, which clarifies what the result will and will not represent.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The core scope is front-loaded, and the contrast with the sibling tool is placed efficiently at the end.

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 parameterless, read-only, idempotent tool, the description fully captures purpose and scope, and the output is reasonably inferable from the stated metrics. There are no missing inputs or hidden invocation requirements.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantic burden. The description still supplies meaningful context about what is being fetched, which is more than enough for a parameterless call.

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 names a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('aggregate pool reserve, depth, and volume metrics across tracked Base DEX liquidity pools'). It also draws a clear boundary by stating it does not filter by individual trading pair and contrasts itself with m2m_get_token_price.

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 clearly frames this as the tool for tracked-pool aggregate DEX metrics and notes that pair-level filtering is not available. It names a sibling, m2m_get_token_price, as the spot-price alternative, though it does not explicitly say 'use X when you need spot prices'.

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